prpri Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sothia Mining and Manufacturing Corporation Ltd., (186 ITR 182) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sothia Mining and Manufacturing Corporation Ltd., (186 ITR 182)

Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Sothia Mining and Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. (Calcutta High Court)
Appeal Number : 1990 186 ITR 182 Cal
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/03/1989
Related Assessment Year :

The decision in this case arose out of an order passed by the Tribunal which had condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the respondent. The Tribunal had condoned the delay on the ground that there was a decision of the Supreme Court on the controversy raised and because of the said decision the Assessee had found that it had good reason to prefer an appeal. This decision does not refer to the period of delay except for the fact that the delay was condoned in view of the decision of the Supreme Court which was  available when the order was passed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal had merely agreed with the discretion exercised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in condoning the delay. The High Court did not interfere with the decision of the Tribunal.

Calcutta High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax

vs

Sothia Mining and Manufacturing Corporation Ltd.

Date- 13 March, 1989

Equivalent citations: 1990 186 ITR 182 Cal

Author: S C Sen

Bench: S C Sen, B P Banerjee

JUDGMENT Suhas Chandra Sen, J.

1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) :

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, A-IV Range, Calcutta ?”

2. The reference is pending since 1979. No paper book has been filed even up to this day. It appears that the only dispute is about the condonation of delay in preferring the appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal held that there was sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeals for the years under consideration by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

3. The Tribunal has gone into the question in depth and has held that whether certain expenditure was revenue or capital was in dispute. The assessee had accepted the decision of the Income-tax Officer for the time being. Thereafter, there was a judgment of the Supreme Court on the controversy raised and because of that judgment, the assessee found that it had a good reason to prefer an appeal-That being the position, we fail to see how it can be said that discretion was wrongly exercised in the matter by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal has merely agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the matter of condonation of delay.

4. In our view, the question raised must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

5. There will be no order as to costs. Filing of paper book is dispensed with.

Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.

6. I agree.

NF

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

July 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031