INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. SHIV OM VARSHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been made by the assessee Dr. Shiv Om Varshney in regard to the asst. yr. 1980-81. His appeal was allowed by the Tribunal for the aforesaid year in part and his net professional income was reduced to Rs. 14,000 by order dt. 31st Aug., 1984. Thereafter he made an application for revision before the Tribunal stating tht he should have been granted deduction in respect of the Life Insurance Premium paid by him. The Tribunal pointed out that no application for revision was maintainable, but since the error appeared to be apparent to the Tribunal it treated the aforesaid application as an application for rectification and directed the ITO to grant deduction in respect of the Life Insurance Premium paid by the assessee in accordance with law. The applicant then made an application before the Tribunal under S. 256(1) of the Act with a prayer that the questions mentioned in the said application may be referred to this Court for its opinion. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dt. 26th Dec., 1984, on the ground that none of the questions stated in the application arose from the order of the Tribunal.

(2.) THE applicant thereafter sent the present application to this Court by post and it seems to have been received by the office of the Court as is apparent from the order sheet dt. 10th March, 1986, on 3rd Aug., 1985. From the order sheet it also appears that the petitioner who had appeared on that date in person and who had appeared in person before us also that the copy of the order of the Tribunal dismissing his application under S. 256(1) of the Act had been served on him on 19th Feb., 1985. The office had pointed out that the application under S. 256(2) of the Act should have been presented in person and the sending of the said application by post was irregular. An application dt. 18th March, 1986 has thereafter been presented by the applicant for condonation of the irregularities pointed out in the report of the office. Necessary copies of the orders have also been filed. The petitioner has stated before us that he was not aware of the procedure of this Court that the application under S. 256(2) of the Act was to be presented in person and could not be sent by post. The irregularity in the presentation of the application deserves to be and is hereby condoned. As regards the limitation copy of the order dismissing his application under S. 256(1) of the Act having been served on the applicant on 19th Feb., 1985 and the application under S. 256 (2) of the Act which was sent to this Court by post having been received by the office of the Court on 3rd Aug., 1985, the application is apparently within time, the irregularity in its prevention having already been condoned.

(3.) . In the result this application is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders to costs.