Hukmi Chand Hardat Rai vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Dawson Miller, CJ.

It appears from the record of this case that the appeal was determined on the 12th June, 1924. It was not until the 22 nd july that the assessee applied to the Commissioner for a review, or in the alternative for a reference to the High Court on a case stated. The Commissioner refused to state a case. He did not in terms draw attention to the fact that the application to state a case was made more than one month after the order passed u/s 31 of the income tax Act, but it was not perhaps necessary for him to do so as he refused to state a case.

The matter then came before the High Court on an application by the assessee under sub-section (3) of section 66 and the High Court without having their attention called to the dates in the case directed the Commissioner to state a case upon certain points. The Commissioner has done so but our attention has been called to the fact that the application to state a case was out of time and therefore the assessee was not entitled u/s 66 to the benefit of the provisions of sub-section (2) of that section. In these circumstances it-seems to me the only thing that we can do is to confirm the assessment already made by the income tax Officer and afterwards affirmed on appeal. The application objecting to the assessment will be dismissed with costs. The hearing fee will be a sum of Rs. 300 including the money already deposited, that is to say, in addition to the deposit the hearing fee will be Rs. 200 payable by the assessee.

Foster, J.

I agree