1985 (10) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ainst the Corporation by the Income-tax Officer concerned in proceedings for the assessment of income-tax in respect of assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. The Corporation claimed certain exemptions under sections 10(20) and 11 of the Act. However, the exemptions were disallowed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred two appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the " appellate authority "). These appeals were disposed of by orders dated August 1, 1978, and August 19, 1978, respectively. The first order pertained to the assessment year 1973-74 and the second related to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The appellate authority accepted the appeal of the Corporation in part an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and on behalf of the petitioner in this court on November 16, 1981, for the issue of a certified copy of the order passed on November 13, 1981, in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 792 of 1981. The copy was ready for delivery and was delivered to the representative of the Corporation on December 3 , 1981. On December 7, 1981, Income-tax Reference Application Nos. 834,835 and 836 of 1981 were filed by and on behalf of the Corporation before the Tribunal. These applications have been rejected by the impugned order. The period of limitation prescribed for the filing of an application under section 256(1) of the Act is 60 days from the date of the service of the order. Therefore, in the normal course, the applications should have been filed o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pplication under section 256(1) within a further period not exceeding thirty days than the one prescribed in section 256(1) if it (the Tribunal) is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting an application within the period specified. In Sital Prasad Saxena v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1, the Supreme Court emphasised that let it be recalled what has been said umpteen times that rules of procedure are designed to advance justice and are so interpreted as not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring party. The Tribunal, therefore, committed a manifest error of law in not giving advantage to the petitioner of the time spent by it in this court in obtaining a certified copy of the order passed in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X