TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (2) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst the making of the assessment under section 144, there was an application under section 146 of the Act filed by the assessee on 20-4-1981 praying for the cancellation of the ex parte assessment and making of afresh assessment in accordance with law. No orders on this application under section 146 appear to have been passed by the ITO. The assessee, however, filed an appeal against the assessment order to the AAC. In this appeal, the AAC held, firstly, that the default of notices under section 143(2) of the Act was without reasonable cause and, therefore, the ex parte assessment under section 144 was justified. The AAC further held that the treatment of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 19,152 as the assessee's income from undisclosed sourc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een filed by the assessee on 20-4-1981 and brought to my notice that till now no order had been passed by the ITO on this application under section 146. He submitted that if in the order, under section 146, passed by the ITO on the assessee's application, the assessment under consideration here was cancelled, the present appeal will become infructuous. He further submitted that even if the ITO rejected the assessee's application under section 146, it will be open to the assessee to file an appeal against the order of the ITO under section 146 and if as a result of the appeal the assessment under consideration here was cancelled either by the AAC or by the Tribunal, the same result will follow, i.e., the present appeal will become infructuou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court and the issue arose before their Lordships of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the cases of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 70 and CIT v. Duncan Bros. & Co. Ltd. [1955] 28 ITR 427, whether if no reference was made by the Tribunal within 90 days, the reference can be made subsequently by the Tribunal. Their Lordships laid down that the question of limitation arises only where there is a delay by the parties to the dispute before a Court and not where a Court or a public authority has not performed its duty resulting in delay and in such a case it could never be the intention of the Legislature that the object of the Legislature should be set at nought not by the breach in performance of public duty by the authori....