RAMANARAYANA DAS MADANLAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER S. 66 of the IT Act, this Court asked the Tribunal to state a case which has since been done. The questions referred to us are:

(2.) WHEN the appeal goes back to the Tribunal it will be for them to consider whether the order of extension, if any, granted by the IT authorities was a valid order and would conduce to the assessee being considered for the purpose of the proviso to S. 30 as one who has not committed any default, or who has not been in arrears in respect of income -tax. We have not been posted with all the facts and circumstances which should have enabled us to answer this question with any amount of certainty. We, therefore, leave the question at large.

(3.) LOOKING to how the matter was treated by the AAC in the instant case, it is clear that he had fixed a date and place for the hearing of the appeal and had invited all the concerned parties. In case we thought any notional stage of admission to be intervening, which according to me is not so much necessary, that stage, according to the appellate authority, had already passed. He had set down the appeal for the purpose of hearing. The matter of hearing is provided for in S. 31 and S. 31 alone. There is no other provision in the Act under which an appeal could be disposed of. Under the circumstances, the order disposing of the appeal is an order under S. 31. Its character as an order under that section does not depend upon the ground on which the order proceeds. The ground may be one of a preliminary character but when decided one way or the other, and particularly when it is decided against the assessee, it goes to the root of the matter and amounts to a final disposal of the appeal.