Hughes Services vs Union Of India And Others
1992 Latest Caselaw 33 Del

JUDGMENT

1. Rule D. B.

2. An application has been moved in court in which it is contended that, for the purposes of section 10(6)(vii)(a) of the Income-tax Act, section 293B is not applicable. It is contended that the said section contains two limbs : the first limb is for initial approval and because it does not contain any time limit for approval, section 293B does not apply.

3. On the face of it, the said contention is without any merit. The aforesaid provision, inter alia, requires the contract of service to be approved by the Central Government and the time limit for filing of the application is prescribed, that is the application should be filed either before the commencement of service or within six months of such commencement.

4. Section 293B has to be liberty construed and, in our opinion, it clearly gives power to the Central Government and the Board to consider applications for condoning delay on sufficient cause being shown. Such an application is maintainable whenever the approval of the Central Government is required. Section 10(6)(ii)(a) clearly requires approval of the Central Government and it is only if there is delay on the part of the applicant in seeking approval that the question regarding the condensation of delay will arise.

5. It is not possible for us to construe section 293B in such a way as to take away the owner of the Central Government of the Board to condone delay in appropriate cases. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

6. A last opportunity to the respondents to comply with our order dated July 9, 1991. The application of the petitioner should be considered on merits within a period of eight weeks from today. Till the disposal of the application, no money should be recovered from the petitioner by coercive process.

7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.