COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUBRAMANIAN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the confusion which appears in the order of the Tribunal which has obviously led the Revenue to file this application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, it becomes necessary to pass a slightly detailed order.

(2.) THE main question before the Tribunal was the meaning of the word "forward" in S. 144B of the Act, which requires the ITO in certain circumstances to "forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment . . . to the assessee". The Department's case was that the draft order was forwarded on 30th March,1982. Admittedly, the order was received on 5th April, 1982, by the assessee. When the matter reached the stage of the Tribunal, the Tribunal referred to the contention of the assessee that the expression "forward" includes the fact of service also. This contention, the Tribunal positively negatived, by observing as follows:

(3.) THESE observations can leave no one in doubt that the Tribunal accepted the construction to be placed on the word "forward" as contended by the Revenue that it is not to be equated with service and that it is enough if the draft order is put in the process of communication. What is, however, important is that having thus laid down the correct meaning of the word "forward", the Tribunal proceeded further to observe that even the forwarding of the draft order has been after 31st March, 1982, as will be clear from the following observations: