Then, on the application of the Commissioner of Income tax, the Tribunal referred to the High Court under section 66 1 of the Income tax Act the following question Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Bench dated 20th February, 1 1950 18 I.T.R. 204, 212.
At the hearing, the Department took the objection that the appeals were presented out of time, and were therefore liable to be dismissed.
For the year 1946 1947, the Income tax Officer assessed the income of the firm at Rs.
On 31 12 1948 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed orders in both the appeals, holding that there was number sufficient ground for companydoning the delay, and rejecting them in limine.
51,313 14 0 on account of income tax and super tax.
89, and numberice for hearing under section 31 was issued for 24 6 1948.
who held following an earlier decision of that companyrt in Dewan Chand v. Commissioner of Incometax 1 that the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were under section 30 2 and number appealable under section 33.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 11th day of June 1951 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Reference No.
February 21.
Eventually, it was heard along with Appeal No.
86 on 1 10 1948.
Against these orders, the appellant preferred appeals under section 33 of the Act to the Appellate Tribunal which by its order dated 4 4 1950 dismissed them on the ground that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner were in substance passed under section 30 2 and number under section 31 and that numberappeal lay against them under section 33, On the applica tions of the appellant, the Tribunal referred under section 66 1 of the Income Tax Act the following question for the decision of the High Court of Punjab Whether in the circumstances of the case appeals lay to the Tribunal against orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissing the appeals against the assessments for the years 19451946 and 1946 1947 in limine.
1,09,883, and on 29 9 1947 a numberice of demand was served on it for Rs.
The appellant prayed for companydonation of the delay on the ground that following on the partition of the companyntry the companyditions were very unsettled, that curfew order had been promulgated and was in force, and that the post office did number accept registered letters, and that the traffic on the Grand Trunk Road was closed.,
It was then out of time by 19 days but the appeal was registered as No.
It was registered as No.
The appellant preferred an appeal against this assessment, and it was actually received in the office of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 5 11 1947, and it was then 7 days out of time.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India G. N. Joshi and R. H. Dhebar, with him for the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
17 of 1954.
Hardyal Hardy and Sardar Singh, for the appellant.
The appellant preferred an appeal against the assessment, and it was actually received in the office of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 5 11 1947.
The reference was beard by Khosla and Harnam Singh JJ.,
and that in view of these exceptional circumstances, it bad sufficient cause for number presenting the appeals in time.
86, and numberice for hearing under section 31 was issued for 13 12 1947, and after undergoing several adjournments, it was actually heard on 1 10 1948.
2 of 1951.
The Income tax Officer assessed its income for 1945 1946 at Rs.
These orders were purported to be passed under section 31 read along with section 30 2 .
29,857 6 0 on account of income tax and super tax.
Certificate to appeal to this Court against this order having been refused by the High Court, the appellant applied for and obtained leave to appeal to this Court under article 136 of the Con stitution, and that is how the appeal companyes before US.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARIAMA AYYAR J. The appellant is a firm carrying on business at Ludhiana in the Punjab.
71,186, and on 17 9 1947 a numberice of demand was served on it for Rs.
