1990 PLP 234 (PTD)
RAM SINGH VERMA Versus INCOME‑TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others
| Citation | 1990 PLP 234 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Allahabad High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | Om Prakash and R.K. Gulati, JJ |
| Parties | RAM SINGH VERMA Versus INCOME‑TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 234 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 234 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Allahabad High Court (India) bench comprising: Om Prakash and R.K. Gulati, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 234 (PTD) (RAM SINGH VERMA Versus INCOME‑TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Reference‑‑Writ‑‑Delay in making application for reference‑‑Application for condonation of delay on ground of illness‑‑Tribunal not justified in dismissing application. without rejecting plea of illness‑‑Tribunal was directed to consider application.
Judgment & Decree
INCOME‑TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 105 of 1989, decided on 12th January, 1989. ‑‑‑Reference‑‑Writ‑‑Delay in making application for reference‑‑Application for condonation of delay on ground of illness‑‑Tribunal not justified in dismissing application. without rejecting plea of illness‑‑Tribunal was directed to consider application. Upon hearing of the parties, we are of the view that the facts of this petition are such as can be disposed of finally right at this stage, without calling for any counter‑affidavit. The petitioner moved an application under section 256(1) of the Income‑tax Act, 1961, with a delay of 17 days and made an application for condonation of delay, stating that the applicant being 80 years old and ill, could not contact his counsel well in time and, therefore, the application was delayed by 17 days. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, without rejecting the contention regarding the illness made by the petitioner. The Tribunal, in our view, on the facts and circumstances of this case, ought to have adopted a justice‑oriented approach and ought to have allowed the application of the petitioner; otherwise also, without rejecting the plea of illness, the Tribunal. A was not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner made for condonation of delay. For the reasons, we accept the contention of the petitioner and allow this petition. The order dated April 29, 1988 (Annexure `I' to the writ petition); is quashed and the Tribunal is directed to entertain the application made under Section 256(1) of the Income‑tax Act, 1961, and dispose of the same on merits according to law. Z.S./707/T Order accordingly.