2001 PLP 2028 (PTD)
A.P. SIVARAMAN and others Versus INCOME‑TAX OFFICER and others
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2028 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 239 1 T R 532 |
| Bench Members | Om Prakash, C. J. and J. B. Koshy, J |
| Parties | A.P. SIVARAMAN and others Versus INCOME‑TAX OFFICER and others |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2028 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2028 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 239 1 T R 532 bench comprising: Om Prakash, C. J. and J. B. Koshy, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2028 (PTD) (A.P. SIVARAMAN and others Versus INCOME‑TAX OFFICER and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.A. Nagendran and Premjith Nagendran for Appellants.
- V.V. Asokan, Special Government Pleader for Respondents
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Central Board of Revenue‑‑‑Powers of‑‑‑Power to issue directions‑‑‑Application filed before C.B.D.T. for condonation of delay in filing rectification applications‑‑‑Applications rejected after considering report from CIT, Cochin, which was forwarded to CIT, Bangalore‑ ‑‑No evidence to show that thereby jurisdiction of C.B.R., divested‑‑‑CBR has discretion to condone or not to condone delay‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act,, 1961, Ss.119(2)(b) &
154. The assessees filed applications for rectification of their assessments under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were filed belatedly. The assessees also filed applications under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the applications for rectification. The Central Board of Direct Taxes taking into consideration the report of the Commissioner of Income‑tax, Cochin, which was forwarded to it by the Chief Commissioner, Bangalore, rejected the application for condonation of delay. On a writ petition challenging the rejection of the application, a single Judge held that the question whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay or not was a matter within the discretion of the C.B.D.T and the Board had considered the matter and found that there was no ground for condonation of delay. The Single Judge rejected the contention of the assessee that the Board had lost its jurisdiction to consider the application for condonation of delay inasmuch as the files had been transferred to the Chief Commissioner of Income‑tax, Bangalore. The Single Judge observed, that there was no evidence to show that the files had been transferred to the Chief Commissioner of Income‑tax, Banglore, and that the Board thereby divested itself of its jurisdiction. On a writ appeal preferred by the assessee against the judgment of the Single Judge: Held, that the Chief Commissioner at Bangalore, merely forwarded the' report of the Commissioner of Income‑tax, Cochin, and that there was nothing to indicate that the proceedings had been transferred to the Chief Commissioner of Income‑tax at Bangalore thereby divesting the jurisdiction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the matter. It was purely within the discretion of the C.B.D.T to condone or not to condone the delay. It could not be said that the Board had acted arbitrarily inasmuch as the Board rejected 'the application for condonation of delay only after taking into consideration the report called for from the Commissioner of Income‑tax, Cochin, which was duly forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Income -tax, Bangalore. A.P. Sivaraman v. ITO (1994) 209 ITR 36 affirmed.
Judgment & Decree
A.P. Sivaraman v. ITO (1994) 209 ITR 36 affirmed. S.A. Nagendran and Premjith Nagendran for Appellants. V.V. Asokan, Special Government Pleader for Respondents OM PRAKASH, C.J.‑‑‑This appeal is preferred by the assessees against the judgment, dated March 17, 1994 (see (1994) 209 ITR 36), passed by the learned single Judge. The assessees sought rectification under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), by the applications which were made belatedly. Condonation of delay was sought by the applications made under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short "the Board"), taking into consideration the report of the Commissioner of Income‑tax, Cochin, which was forwarded to it by the Chief Commissioner of Income‑tax, Bangalore, rejected the applications for condonation of delay. Such rejection was challenged in the original petition before this Court. The learned single Judge rejected the original petition observing as under (page 40): "The question whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay or not is a matter within the discretion of the Board. The Board considered the matter and found that there was no ground for condonation of the delay." Before the Judge, the assessees contended that the Board had lost its jurisdiction to consider the applications for condonation of delay, inasmuch as the files had been transferred to the Chief Commissioner of Income‑tax, Bangalore. Rejecting such contention of the assessees, the learned single Judge observed that there was no evidence to show that the files had been transferred to the Chief Commissioner of Income‑tax at Bangalore, and that the Board thereby divested itself of its jurisdiction. We sent for the original record which has been produced by learned senior standing counsel. Upon a perusal of the report which was considered by the Board, it clearly appears that the Chief Income‑tax Commissioner at Bangalore simply forwarded the report of the Commissioner of Income‑tax, Cochin. There is nothing to indicate that the proceedings had been transferred to the Chief Commissioner of Income‑tax at Bangalore thereby diverting the jurisdiction of the Board in the matter. We fully agree with the learned single Judge that it was purely within the discretion of the Board to condone or not to condone the delay. In this case it cannot be said that the Board acted arbitrarily, inasmuch the Board rejected the application for condonation of delay only after taking into consideration the report called for from the Commissioner of Income‑tax Cochin, which was duly forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Income‑tax at Bangalore. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. M.B.A./246/FC Appeal dismissed.