SATYANARAYAN PATODIA Vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an assessee under the Income-tax Act of 1961, made an application to the Appellate Tribunal under the Act for making a reference to this court as provided under Section 256(1) thereof. THE second appellate order was claimed to have been served on March 6, 1972, and since an application under Section 256(1) lies if filed within 60 days thereof, the application for reference filed on May 5, 1972, was claimed to be in time. THE Tribunal found that the appellate order had been sent by registered post with acknowledgment due and the receipt furnished by the assessee showed the date of service of the appellate order as March 4, 1972. THE assessee took the stand that an erroneous date had been put inadvertently and the actual date of service was March 6, 1972. In support of his stand he obtained a certificate from the Postmaster of the serving post office and filed it before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal without instituting any further enquiry thought it appropriate to accept the date indicated in the acknowledgment due as the date of service. Since the Tribunal had not been asked to condone the delay by an application of the assessee on a finding that the application was belated by two days, the same was dismissed. This application for a certiorari is directed against the said order.

(2.) MR. Mohanty for the assessee contends that when the assessee had taken a definite stand that the date put in the acknowledgment due was a mistake and produced a certificate from the Postmaster of the concerned post office to show that the registered letter was actually delivered on March 6, 1972, an enquiry was called for. The Appellate Tribunal acting as a quasi-judicial authority was duty bound to institute an enquiry to find out the truth and should not have pinned down the assessee to the date put by him in the acknowledgment due form, particularly when the assessee came forward to contend that it was a mistake. An opportunity to establish the mistake should have been given to the assessee.