RAJU RAMCHANDRA BHANGDE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the assessee, the following question is referred in this reference under the IT Act, 1922:

(2.) THE point arises against the following factual background. The appeal filed by the assessee before the AAC through his advocate who also happened to be his natural father was fixed for final hearing at Akola on 22nd Feb., 1963 on which day certain account books were to be produced in support of a contention that certain amount was nothing but accumulation of the amount received from the HUF. By application dt. 12th Feb., 1963, the learned advocate applied by post for adjournment and requested that the appeal may be heard at Wardha. This application was received by the AAC on 19th Feb., 1963. The appeal was ultimately fixed for final hearing on 25th June, 1963, and the notice of the hearing was served on the assessee. None appeared and the appeal was decided at camp Wardha, on 30th March, 1963. The order was communicated on 11th Sept., 1963. Memorandum of appeal was, however, received by post by the Tribunal on 12th April, 1965. Thus, there was a delay of 520 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay and hence this reference.

(3.) NOW , it is obvious that application under S. 35 for rectification was wholly misconceived under the circumstances. Indeed, this aspect is not fairly disputed by Shri Thakkar, the learned Advocate, appearing for the assessee. The argument is that the assessee should not be made to suffer for the genuine mistake of his counsel. In support of this proposition, reliance was also placed on Supreme Court decision in the case of Mata Din vs. Narayanan AIR 1970 SC 1953.