HINDUSTANI CONSTRUCTION CO LIMITED Vs. V S GAITONDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on a certificate grated by the High Court of Bombay against its judgment dated February 24, 1961, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. This appeal raises a short question us to the construction of S. 49-E of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Before we deal with this question, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts.

(2.) The appellant, at the material time, carried on business not only in Indian but also outside India, i.e., Ceylon, the former States of Kolhapur and Kapurthala and other places. It is not necessary to give the facts relating to the income in Ceylon and Kolhapur because if the facts relating to the income made in Kapurthala are stated, these will bring out the real controversy between the appellant and the Revenue. We may mention that it is common ground that the facts relating to Ceylon income and Kolhapur income are substantially similar.

(3.) On July 9, 1954, the appellant wrote a letter to the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle, Bombay stating that for the assessment year 1949-50, it was entitled to refund on the income taxed in Kapurthala State. It attached an original certificate for tax showing payment of Rs. 37,828-11-0, and requested that a refund order be passed at an early date. On June 27, 1956, the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the claim filed by the appellant was not within the time limit of four years laid down in R. 5 of Income-tax (Double Taxation Relief) (Indian States) Rules, 1939 - hereinafter called the Indian States Rules. On December 18, 1956, the appellant filed a revision, under S. 33A of the Act, against the said order, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. The appellant stated in the petition that