MUNSHI HUSSAIN Vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Poddar, on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Vidhyarthi, on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) MR. Vidhyarthi has taken a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this case on the ground of limitation. We find that the grounds taken by the petitioner in his petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have not been controverted by the Revenue by filing any rejoinder to that. As such, we condone the delay in filing this case and allow the limitation petition.

(3.) CRITICISING the order of respondent No. 1, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the assessing authority as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal failed to consider the relevant documents produced by the petitioner in coming to the conclusion as to whether the firm was a genuine one, it was incumbent on respondent No. 1 to formulate the points of law to the effect that whenever any material on record is not considered, the question being a question of law, must be referred to the High Court. In support of his contention, drawing our attention to various paragraphs of the petition, Mr. Poddar submits that when the petitioner filed documents of unregistered deed of partnership, the same ought to have been considered by the authorities and that having not been done, the matter should have been referred to the High Court. In this context he has relied on a decision in the case of Nellikottu Kolleriyil Madhavi v. Kavakkalathil Kalikutty [1977] 1 Supreme 210