9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961, on account of payment of sales tax made by the assessee within the time prescribed by the H. P. Sales Tax Act. The appeal having been decided adversely to the petitioner assessee, the assessee filed an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking reference to the High Court of the question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. The application was rejected on May 30, 1995, by the Tribunal forming an opinion that the answer to the question was covered by a decision of the Delhi High Court, which is the jurisdictional High Court in Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1991] 189 ITR 81 (Delhi). Copy of the order was communicated to the petitioner on June 28, 1995. The petitioner was advised not to pursue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been opposed vehemently on behalf of the Revenue. Learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue has submitted that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not applicable to an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act because the limitation for filing the application is provided not by the Limitation Act but by the Income-tax Act itself. It has also submitted that change in the view of the law cannot be a ground for condoning the delay in filing an application. In other words, change in the view of law does not amount to " sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act. The first question for consideration is whether the applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is at all attrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Act to such appeals in the light of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act can be said to have been satisfied." For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such is the view taken by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. [1992] 64 Taxman 6. The second question is whether change in the view of the law can be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring a petition within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee has brought to our notice two Full Bench decisions. In Bhagwan Swarup v. Municipal Board, Ujhani, AIR 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. So long as the decision of the Delhi High Court in Escorts Ltd.'s case [1991] 189 ITR 81 held the field, it would have served no useful purpose in pursuing the matter further. Rather it would have amounted to an attempt at striking the head against the wall. Shortly thereafter the law was settled by an authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court. Promptly the matter was entrusted to counsel for moving the High Court by an appropriate application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. A delay of about 25 days was occasioned for factors attributable to personal inability of counsel for which the litigant cannot be blamed. Factors like gross negligence, contumacy or misconduct cannot be attributed either to the litigant or to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
