Commissioner vs Glorious Electric Co.

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—In the instant revision application, we are concerned with the assessment year 1995-96. During that assessment year, compounding scheme was in force, is not in dispute. There is also no dispute that, during assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97, benefit of compounding scheme was made available to the assessee. The benefit of the said scheme was not made available to the assessee during the assessment year in question only on the ground that the application made for obtaining benefit under the said scheme during the said assessment year was belated. The Tribunal has held that the application for compounding scheme had been filed beyond the prescribed time-limit, but, at the same time, it is also undisputed that the assessee had been given credit of the said scheme in the previous year as well as in the subsequent year also and that it is also an admitted fact that there is no fixed time-limit in the scheme disclosing the period of its enforceability and, accordingly, there remains sufficient basis for the bona fide on the part of the assessee to believe continuance of the previously opted compounding scheme during the relevant year. The revisionist is contending that this finding is contrary to what has been provided in the scheme. While the scheme has not been brought on record along with the papers submitted with the revision application, the same has not been brought on record or placed before us even independently. We, accordingly, find no reason to interfere. The revision application fails and the same is dismissed.