MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference, under their Income-tax Act, arises out of two assessments made on the Malayalam Plantations Ltd., Quilon, for the Malabar years 1122 and 1124 under the Travancore Income-tax Act. Against those assessments, the assessee, the Malayalam Plantation Ltd., m preferred two appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, Income-tax Appeals No. 443 of 1124 against the assessment for 1122 and Income-tax Appeal No. 975 of 1124 against the assessment for 1124. Both these appeals were disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on August 30, 1952. Against the orders passed by him on that date the assessee preferred two appeals to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench B.I.T. Appeals Nos. 5007 and 5008 of 1952-53. These appeals were filed on November 21, 1952. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed both of them on the ground that they were time-barred, that is, that they were filed after sixty days from the date of the communication of the Appellate Assistant Commissioners order to the assessee. The position which the assessee took up before the Appellate Tribunal was that the appeals were not time-bared, But by way of abundant caution the assessee had also filed two petitions for condoning the delay, if the Tribunal was of the opinion that there was delay in filing the appeals. These applications for condoning the delay were also dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. Then the assessee applied for a reference to this court. The Appellate Tribunal granted the application and has referred to this court the following question, namely :

(2.) SECTION 115 of the Travancore Income-tax Act corresponds to section 67A of the Indian Income-tax Act, and provides that section 12 of the Travancore Limitation Act shall apply in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal under that Act : and section 12 of the Travancore Limitation Act provides :

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Income-tax Department conceded before us that if we were of the opinion that the assessee was entitled to exclude the time taken for obtaining the certified copies of the orders from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the two appeals filed before the Tribunal would be in time. But his contention was that the assessee was not entitled to exclude such time and that the assessee should have preferred the appeals with the help of the free copy supplied to him by the Department.