SARDARMAL KHUMCHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three rules arise out of the applications under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The petitioners in the rules Nos. 1(M) and 2(M) of 1963 are the same. The petitioner in rule No. 3(M) of 1963 is different. The two rules Nos. 1 and 2 relate, however, to different periods. Rule No. 1 relates to the period 1958-59 and rule No. 2 relates to 1959-60. A common question is involved in these three cases and they can be disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) THE short point which requires consideration is whether section 67A of the Act applies to the present case and whether the applicants were entitled to the exclusion of the time which they required for obtaining the certified copies of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. THE three assessees filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which was rejected. THE copy of the order is alleged to have been sent to the assessees under section 33(4) of the Act. THEreafter, applications were filed under section 66(1) of the Act for reference to the High Court certain questions of law which arose out of the order of the Tribunal. THE Tribunal rejected these applications on the ground that they were barred by limitation.

(3.) THE next contention is that the time cannot be said to be required in obtaining the copy in the cases where the copy has already been supplied to the assessee under section 33(4). THE legislature has not drawn any such distinction and the language, in our opinion, does not justify introducing any such limitation in the section itself. Reliance has been placed on the case of T. N. Swami and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax wherein it has been held by a Bench of the Punjab High Court that in cases where a copy has been supplied under 33(4), no time is requisite for obtaining the copy. An earlier Full Bench decision of the same High Court has been distinguished on the ground that the Full Bench case related to a Letters Patent Appeal where the copy was not required to be filed. We are not inclined to agree with the decision of the Punjab High Court. We do not think there is any justification for introducing the limitation in the section itself. THE language of the section is very plain and there is no basis for holding that the benefit of the section 67A cannot be claimed by an assessee even though he has applied for the certified copy and the time has been taken in obtaining the copy, simply because a copy of the order under section 33(4) has been supplied to him. Another aspect of the matter is that if this interpretation is put then as in all cases copy has to be supplied to the assessee under section 33(4) the application of section 67A in so far as application under section 66(1) is concerned will be negatived. When section 67A was enacted the legislature was aware of the fact that the copy has to be supplied to the assessee under section 33(4) and thus we see no justification for introducing words in the section itself.