Chakravartti, J. - (1.) The question raised by this reference has often arisen under the Income-tax Act and has been answered by different High Courts, other than this Court, in different ways. So far as this Court is concerned, it does not appear that the question came up on any previous occasion, either under the Income-tax Act or under the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act under which it has now arisen.
(2.) The present reference is by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and arises out of the following simple facts. In respect of his agricultural income for the accounting year, 1943-44, an assessment order was made on the assessee, Gour Mohan Mullick, on 5-1-1949. The notice of demand was received by him on the 1st of February next, but he did not prefer an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner till 30-5-1949. Since under Section 34(2) the period of limitation for riling an appeal is 'ordinarily' thirty days from the receipt of the notice of demand, the Assistant Commissioner issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why the petition of appeal should not be rejected as time-barred. Cause was shown but as the Assistant Commissioner did not consider it satisfactory, he passed an order on 27-6-1949, concluding with the following words : "The delay is therefore not condoned. The appeal petition was not entertained under Section 34(2). Inform appellant."
(3.) I may interrupt myself for a moment to point out that in the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal, the date of presentation of the appeal has been wrongly given as 27-6-1949. The order sheet of the Assistant Commissioner which is set out at page 15 of the paper-book makes it perfectly clear that the appeal was filed on the 30th May. It is regrettable that such an inaccuracy should have occurred in the Statement of the Case, particularly when the question is one of limitation.;