Limitation in tax reference applications: re-presentation continues the original filing, and defect-cure delays may be satisfactorily explained.

An application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act was treated as within limitation because it was filed within six months of service of the Tribunal's refusal order. Re-presentation of a petition was regarded as a continuation of the original filing, so limitation was not defeated by defect removal and registry returns. Repeated registry objections, time taken to cure defects, and changes in the officers handling the matter were accepted as a sufficient explanation for delay. Counsel's default in removing defects was not attributed to the applicant for penal consequences. The delay was therefore satisfactorily explained and the application was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sufficiently explained and the application was within limitation.

Analysis: The application for reference was filed within six months from the date of service of the Tribunal's refusal order. The Court applied the principle that re-presentation of a petition is a continuation of the original petition and does not affect limitation. It further accepted the explanation that repeated returns by the registry for defects, the time taken to cure those defects, and the changes in officers handling the matter constituted a sufficient explanation. The default of counsel in removing defects was treated as a circumstance for which the applicant should not be penalised.

Conclusion: The delay stood satisfactorily explained and the application under section 256(2) was not barred by limitation. The application was allowed.

---