COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. RAM MOHAN KABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, vide its order dated May 19, 1998, declined to refer the following question as a question of law to the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In fact the Tribunal held that the order of the authority below in declining the condonation of delay was fully justified. The question of law as formulated by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar, for reference, reads as under :

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that discretion to condone or not to condone the delay would always be a question of law. We are unable to agree with the view of learned counsel for the petitioner that discretion to condone or not to condone the delay would always be a question of law. We are unable to agree with the view. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 ; [1987] 66 STC 228 (SC). At the outset we must notice that the said judgment of the Supreme Court of India has no application to the facts of the present case. In the case of Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471, the Supreme Court in India made the observations with regard to condonation of delay where a private or a Government body is an applicant in that regard. The Supreme Court has made no observation in relation to whether such a question would be a question of law or a question of fact. In fact, that judgment is not dealing with the provisions of Section 256 of the Act.

(3.) The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, there such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. Now it is a settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences.