2009 (9) TMI 5 - HC - Income Tax

Delayed filing of appeal u/s 260A Condonation of delay application of the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as provided under Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 Held that - The remedy of appeal is a statutory right and hence it has to be presented in accordance with the procedure, the manner and within the time prescribed by the Statute, and the principles of natural justice are not remotely attracted so far as the question of limitation is concerned. - Delay in filing the appeals cannot be condoned; - provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals filed under Section 260A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of "expressly excluded" in the context of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. Application of Order XLI Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone delay in filing appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Principles of natural justice in the context of limitation for filing appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals filed under Section 260A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The core issue was whether the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 260A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court examined the provisions of both the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 shall apply to any special or local law unless expressly excluded. The court found that the Income Tax Act, 1961 prescribes a different period of limitation (120 days) than the Limitation Act, 1963 (90 days). However, the court concluded that the special law (Income Tax Act) does not expressly exclude the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. Interpretation of "expressly excluded" in the context of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The court discussed the interpretation of "expressly excluded" and referenced several judgments, including Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker and Hukumdev Narain Yadav Vs. Lalit Narain Mishra. It was concluded that "expressly excluded" does not necessarily mean an explicit exclusion in the text of the statute but can be inferred from the scheme and nature of the special law. The court held that the Income Tax Act, 1961, being a complete code in itself, implies an exclusion of the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. Application of Order XLI Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone delay in filing appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellants argued that Order XLI Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for condonation of delay, should apply to appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court rejected this argument, stating that Order XLI Rule 3-A is not an independent provision conferring jurisdiction to condone delay but rather a procedural provision. The court referenced a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Managing Director, Thanthal Periyar Transport Corpn. Villupuram Vs. K.C. Karthiyayini, which held that Order XLI Rule 3-A does not provide an additional right to claim condonation of delay.

4. Principles of natural justice in the context of limitation for filing appeals:
The appellants contended that principles of natural justice demand that appeals should be heard if sufficient cause for delay is shown. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the remedy of appeal is a statutory right and must be presented according to the prescribed procedure, manner, and time. The principles of natural justice do not apply to the question of limitation for filing appeals.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 260A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It held that the scheme of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a complete code in itself, excludes the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals cannot be condoned, and all the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation.

← Previous Next →