SATRUGHAN MALL Vs. REVENUE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Sub -S. (4) of S. 28, Orissa Agricultural Income -tax Act, 1947 against an order of the Revenue Commissioner, Orissa, rejecting an application under Sub -S. (2) of S. 29 of that Act on the ground that it was time -barred.

(2.) THE material facts are as follows : The petitioner was assessed to agricultural income tax for the year 1947 -48 on 28 -2 -1949. His appeal to the Collector of Agricultural Income -tax under S. 25 of that Act was disposed of on 7 -9 -1949 with some directions to the Agricultural Income -tax officer to modify the assessment order in the light of the instructions contained in the judgment. The petitioner then filed a revision petition under S. 28 of the Act before the Revenue Commissioner which after a remand was finally disposed of on 9 -2 -1951 with an order to the effect that the appellate order of the Collector of Agricultural Income -tax was correct and that there was no ground for revision of his order. The Superintendent of the Revenue Commissioners office communicated the result of the Revenue Commissioners order to the petitioner by his letter dated 16 -2 -1951 which was received by the petitioner on 19 -2 -51. The contents of that letter are as follows :

(3.) THE second objection raised by Mr. Mohapatra is more difficult Do meet. Sub -Section (2) of S. 12, Limitation Act is, in terms, limited to (i) appeal, (ii) application for review of judgment and (iii) application for leave to appeal. On a strict construction, therefore, that Sub -Section cannot help the petitioner in respect of an application under S. 29 (2), Orissa Agricultural Income -tax Act to state a case for the decision of the High Court. But we notice that the corresponding provision in S. 66, Indian Income -tax Act as it stood prior to the amendments made in 1930 by Act 22 of 1930 had been given a liberal construction by three High Courts (See - Mohanlal v. Commr. Income -tax B. and O. AIR 1930 Pat 14 (A); Ramanath Reddiar v. Commr, Income -tax, AIR, 1928 Rang 152 (B), and Md. Havat Haji Md. v. Commr. Income -tax, Punjab and NWFP, AIR 1929 Lah 170 (C). In all those decisions it was held that S. 12(2), Limitation Act would apply in respect of an application to the income -tax authority to state a case under S. 66(1), Income -tax Act. Doubtless, so far as income -tax law was concerned, the Legislature gave recognition to these decisions by inserting S. 67A by the amending Act 22 of 1930. But the reasons given by the learned Judges for giving such a liberal construction seem to be quite convincing and may be adopted in the present instance also.