Ganesh Das Kalu Ram vs Commissioner of Income Tax

This application must be dismissed on the preliminary objection on behalf of the Crown. An application was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 19th February 1929 at Cuttack in the presence of the petitioner or his pleader.

On 18th March 1929 the petitioner applied for copy and received information what number of folios was necessary. No further steps were taken by the petitioner and so on 3rd April the application for copy was struck off the file.

On 4th April the petitioner made an application u/s 66, Sub-section (2). The Commissioner on the facts refused to admit the application on the ground that it was barred since Section 66, Sub-section (2) allows of only one month from the date of the passing of an order u/s 31 or u/s 32. This being so, under Sub-section (3), Section 66 the petitioner could not come upto this Court for assistance.

It has been argued before us that time ought to have been allowed for obtaining a copy of the order of the Assistant Commissioner and it should have been excluded in reckoning limitation. But the learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to state before us how he got a copy of the order or what time it took to get it. The record shows that he took no steps to get the required copy.

The application must be dismissed with costs; hearing fee two gold mohurs.