FATECHAND AGARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point of law that was referred to the Tribunal under section 27(3) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957, is as follows :

(2.) THE question assumes importance on account of the fact that the appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth -tax has been held to be barred by time. The undisputed facts may be indicated first. The assessment order and the demand notice which were sent simultaneously by the department were served on one Basudeb Agrwal on May 19, 1966. Basudeb Agarwal is a partner in one of the firm where the petitioner is also a partner. Basudeb handed over the assessment order to the petitioner on May 22, 1966. The petitioner preferred the appeal on June 22, 1966. If the assessment order is taken to have been served on the petitioner on May 22, 1966, then the appeal was filed within the prescribed time of thirty days. If on the other hand the assessment order served on Basudeb Agrwal on May 19, 1966, is held to be a service on the petitioner himself then clearly the appeal is barred by time. It is to be noted that the petitioner did not file any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay.

(3.) ON the aforesaid analysis, the reference is accepted and the question framed is answered as indicated above. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.