9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Whether an appeal u/s 269G of the I.T. Act can be admitted after the period of limitation if sufficient cause is shown, and the legality of the order dismissing the appeal as time-barred.
Summary: The case involved an appeal filed against the acquisition of immovable property under s. 269F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellants, minors represented by their father, filed the appeal after the prescribed period of 30 days. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred, citing reasons related to the competence of the application for condonation of delay and the awareness of the father, who was an advocate, about the law on limitation. The appellants argued that s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allows for extension of the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown. The court referred to relevant statutory provisions and previous judgments to establish the applicability of s. 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under the Income-tax Act. It was emphasized that minors' interests must be protected, even if their guardian, who is also an advocate, made a mistake in understanding the law. The father, in his application for condonation of delay, stated that he was under the mistaken belief that the limitation for filing the appeal was 60 days. The court, considering the principle that litigants should not suffer for their counsel's mistakes, allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remitted the appeal for fresh decision on merits. The respondents were directed to pay the appellants' costs. In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remitted the appeal for fresh decision on merits, emphasizing the protection of minors' interests and the principle that litigants should not suffer for their counsel's mistakes.
|
