9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, that section 5 has no manner of application in respect of an appeal preferred under section 260A - We find on the merits that the delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay, therefore, is condoned. - - - - - Dated:- 25-7-2005 - Judge(s) : D. K. SETH., MAHARAJ SINHA. JUDGMENT It is pointed out that this appeal covers two assessment years. The court fee paid is to be accepted in respect of the first assessment year. The appellant shall put in additional court fee for the second assessment year within a period of eight weeks. In default, the appeal shall be treated as against the assessment year 1991-92 and so far as the assessment year 1995-96 is concerned, the same shall stand dismissed in default of putting in the deficit c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the respondent attempted to explain that section 260A having not provided for condonation of delay, as is provided in section 256(1), by necessary implication has excluded the application of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, being hit by section 29 of that Act. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, contends that there is nothing to indicate that the application of the Limitation Act is excluded except providing a special limitation. According to him, the "application of sections 4 to 24 is to be excluded expressly and such express exclusion can be inferred from the scheme of the statute even by necessary implication. But the statute nowhere necessarily implies the exclusion of the application of sections 4 to 24 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 would apply on the basis of such special period so prescribed in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special law. It appears that under section 256(1), a period has been provided together with a power to condone the delay within a limited period as prescribed in the proviso to section 256(1). This was done in view of the fact that the Limitation Act had no manner of application before the Tribunal before whom an application for reference under section 256(1) is to be made. But when it incorporated the provisions for reference to the High Court under sub-section (2), it had only provided the period within which such an application is to be made, remainin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
