9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deficit court fees within the period stipulated above. Appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act: Application of the Limitation Act: Whether excluded: This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal by the Department by 137 days. Learned counsel for the respondent took a novel point, that section 5 of the Limitation Act has no manner of application in an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in view of the provisions contained in section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963. According to him, the Income-tax Act is admittedly a special Act. A special period of limitation has been prescribed in sub-section (2) of section 260A. In the absence of any specific pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 24 of the Limitation Act. Admittedly, the Income-tax Act is a special Act. It expressly provides in section 260A for a period of limitation for preferring an appeal to the High Court, which is 120 days. But the reference to article 116 of the Limitation Act is wholly misplaced since the limitation provided therein applies to an appeal provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. This period is substituted in respect of an appeal under section 260A by the period prescribed in clause (a) of sub-section (2) thereof. This special period of limitation will prevail over and exclude the period provided in the Limitation Act for preferring appeal. This prescription of the special period, however, does not necessarily imply that the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining silent with regard to the question of exclusion of the application of sections 4 to 24. At the same time, section 260A while providing for special period of limitation, in subsection (2), the statute remains silent with regard to the question that by necessary implication the application of sections 4 to 24 is excluded, the court is not supposed to presume such exclusion, particularly, when there is nothing to hold that the provisions of section 260A are hit by section 29(2) of the Limitation Act or that the application of sections 4 to 24 is expressly excluded or even by necessary implication. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention raised by Mr. Murarka, learned counsel for the respondent, that section 5 has no manne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
