Condonation of delay under the Limitation Act remains available for section 260A appeals absent express exclusion.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 unless the special law excludes it expressly or by necessary implication under section 29(2). The mere fact that section 260A prescribes a special limitation period does not, by itself, displace the Limitation Act's condonation provisions. On the facts stated, the delay of 137 days was satisfactorily explained, so the court condoned the delay and directed the appeal to proceed for admission.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the absence of an express provision excluding it; (ii) Whether the delay of 137 days in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and liable to be condoned.

Issue (i): Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the absence of an express provision excluding it.

Analysis: Section 260A prescribes a special period of limitation for appeals to the High Court, but the mere prescription of a special limitation period does not, by itself, exclude the operation of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Under section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, exclusion of those provisions must follow from express words or necessary implication in the special law. Since section 260A does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude the application of section 5, the special limitation under the Income-tax Act operates subject to the Limitation Act to the extent not excluded.

Conclusion: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay of 137 days in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and liable to be condoned.

Analysis: On the materials placed, the delay was found to have been satisfactorily accounted for. The explanation furnished for the period of delay was accepted as adequate for exercising the power of condonation.

Conclusion: The delay of 137 days was condoned.

Final Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay succeeded and the appeal was directed to proceed for admission.

Ratio Decidendi: A special law prescribing its own limitation period does not exclude the Limitation Act unless such exclusion is express or necessarily implied; in the absence of such exclusion, condonation provisions remain available.

---