9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and the application of respondent no. 1 came to be disposed by an order dated 20th September 2016. For the purpose of this petition, we need not go into the events that happened prior to respondent no. 1 filing its application before the Commission. By its order dated 20th September 2016 (the said order) the Commission had allowed the application of respondent no. 1 under Section 245D(4) of the Act. The said order was challenged by the Revenue by way of Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 1004 of 2017 (the said writ petition). The challenge in the petition was on the ground that there was failure on the part of respondent no. 1 to make full and true disclosure of income. Respondent no. 1 raised preliminary objection on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to make full and true disclosure of income. This stand of Revenue was rejected by the court by relying upon judgment of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr. (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 463, paragraph 4 of the said judgment reads as under: "4. We find that the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Versus. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another, reported in (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 463, the Apex Court had observed in para-4 as under :- "4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. (2) (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chanderwati, A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 30). That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment." 3. This court rejected the petition holding that it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the correctness of the fact recorded in the said order by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Steel Corporation (supra) wherein it was held in the context of limitation period available for filing appeal under the Customs & Central Excise Act, that the period spent on pursuing an alternate remedy may be excluded from the limitation period for preferring an appeal. Even though the decision is under a different statute and in the matter of an appeal, we are in agreement with the Pr. CIT that the principles laid down by the Apex Court, apply to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, we hold that after excluding the period for pursuing Writ Petition from 10.02.2017 to 21.06.2018, the time available with the Department to file rectification application u/s 245D(6B) was upto 21.07.2018 {i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
