Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Customs

‘Sufficient cause' in section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice as held by Apex Court - Tribunal ought to have accepted the cause shown in two affidavits and condoned delay of 299 days in filing appeal: HC

THE words "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice. On the facts of the case, and in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the cause shown in the two affidavits and condoned the delay in filing the appeal, particularly in view of the fact that Manager (imports & exports) of the petitioner-Company could not attend to office work till December 2005 due to the injuries suffered by him in an accident that occurred on 19.02.2005.

Income Tax

Income tax - Whether AO can brush aside actual rent received and reopen assessment on ground that sister concern earned higher rent from property located in vicinity of assessee's property - NO, rules ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether AO can brush aside actual rent received and reopen assessment on the ground that the sister concern per se earned higher rent from the property located in the vicinity of the assessee's property and whether reasons alone are to be seen while scrutinizing the jurisdiction of AO under section 147. And the ruling goes in favour of the assessee.

Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 - There is no stipulation under Rule to restrict refund based on SION fixed by DGFT: CESTAT

IT can be seen that provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was not considered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) or by the adjudicating authority in the proper perspective as the said Rule 5 does not contemplate the reduction of the refund claim of an amount of credit availed and lying in the balance and which could not be utilised for home clearance, subject to the conditions that the goods are exported and the appellants follows the procedure laid down. It is not disputed in this cases that the appellants herein had followed the proper procedure for filing of the refund claim.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements