MANGAT RAM KUTHIALA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The facts are not much in dispute.

(2.) THE petitioners are the legal representatives of Bilbhadar Mal Kuthiala, who, on 24th Aug., 1948, was assessed to income -tax by the ITO, A Ward, Amritsar. The assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order, which appeal was heard by the Addl. AAC and dismissed on 20th March, 1949 (Annexure 'B'). The assessee went in second appeal to the Tribunal, respondent No. 2. The appeal was sent under registered cover. The petitioners aver that nothing was heard of the appeal by the assessee until on 7th Feb., 1950, a copy of the order of 13th Dec., 1949, of respondent No. 2, dismissing the appeal in default of appearance of the assessee, was received by the assessee. An application was then moved by the assessee on 13th Feb., 1950, before respondent No. 2 for setting aside the order of respondent No. 2 and for restoration of the appeal for disposal according to law after hearing the assessee. The ground taken in the application, supported by an affidavit of the assessee, was that the assessee never received the registered letter purporting to inform him of the date of hearing of the appeal, that the postal authorities never presented that letter to him, and that he never refused to receive any such letter. The application not having been expeditiously disposed of, the assessee moved another application (Annexure 'G') before respondent No. 2 under S. 66(1) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, for drawing up a statement of the case and referring to the High Court questions of law mentioned therein.

(3.) ON the second application of the assessee, respondent No. 2 on 24th Jan., 1954, drew up a statement of the case in accordance with the provisions of S. 66(1) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, and framed two questions of law for determination by the High Court (Annexure 'I'). Those two questions were :