TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The assessment was reopened after obtaining the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. On this transaction, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 11,000 as capital gains tax. On revision, the Income-tax Officer estimated the market value of the land at Rs. 8,000 per acre as on January 1, 1964. The petitioner went on appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and in the appeal, the market value was increased from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 10,000 per acre. He preferred a reference application under section 256(1) of the Act to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In filing the said application, there was a delay of 113 days. The reason for the delay, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of procedure and not of substance. In CST v. Parson Tools and Plants [1975] 4 SCC 22 ; 35 STC 413 (SC), case arising under the Sales Tax Act, the Supreme Court observed that if special legislation happens to lay down a particular limitation contrary to the general law of limitation, it is the former which shall prevail. Therefore, there are absolutely no merits in either of these two writ petitions. In order to appreciate this controversy, let me extract section 256(1) of the Act, which is challenged before me. It reads as under : "Statement of case to the High Court.-(1) The assessee or the Commissioner may, within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under section 254, by application in the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusion of the Limitation Act, section 5 thereof will continue to have its operation. But, that is entirely different from the question which I am called upon to decide. The Act has prescribed the limitation. Parliament has chosen to lay down sixty days as the period of limitation. The power of condonation is only thirty days. Beyond that, there is absolutely no power for the Tribunal to condone. Be it remembered in this connection that the authorities created under the Act are functionaries under the Act and they derive power under this Act and, therefore, unless and until such a power is expressly found anywhere, it cannot be done at all, they being creatures of the statute. In this connection, I may usefully refer to the decision reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tute which would be manifestly fair. But they have no power to amend or supplement the, language of a statute merely because in one view of the matter a subject feels himself entitled to a larger degree of say in the making of a decision than what a statute accords him. Still less is it the function of the courts to form first a judgment on the fairness of an Act of Parliament and then to amend or supplement it with new provisions so as to make it conform to that judgment'." Therefore, where the will of Parliament has been so expressed, the petitioner cannot say that a longer period of limitation must be afforded to him. Law helps those who are vigilant. The petitioner having been a contributory to his own laches, will have to take the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
