Procedural defects in a section 256(2) tax petition do not defeat limitation when re-filing is treated as a continuation of the original filing.

A requirement to file copies of the relevant orders and documents with a section 256(2) Income-tax Act petition was treated as procedural and directory, not a condition precedent to institution, because it served only to assist understanding of the question of law. A returned petition re-presented after curing defects was regarded as a continuation of the original filing, so an application filed within limitation was not rendered time-barred by later defect removal. Delay in re-filing was condoned on a liberal view of sufficient cause, the explanation of inadvertent mix-up of papers being accepted in the absence of mala fides or contumacious conduct.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in re-filing the petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be condoned and whether the omission to file the accompanying orders and documents with the original petition rendered the petition defective in a manner that would defeat limitation.

Analysis: The requirement to accompany a section 256(2) petition with copies of relevant orders and documents was held to be procedural and directory, not mandatory, because the Act itself did not prescribe such filing as a condition precedent and the object of the requirement was only to enable understanding of the question of law sought to be referred. The re-presentation of a returned petition was treated as a continuation of the original filing, so the petition already presented within limitation was not converted into a time-barred proceeding merely because defects were removed later. In considering delay in re-filing, the Court applied a liberal view of sufficient cause, noting the absence of mala fides or contumacious conduct and accepting the explanation that the papers had been mixed up inadvertently and were subsequently traced.

Conclusion: The delay in re-filing was condoned and the petition was treated as maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory or court-rule requirement is intended only to facilitate proper hearing and does not form a condition precedent to institution, non-compliance is directory and a later re-presentation after removal of defects is to be treated as a continuation of the original filing; in such circumstances, sufficient cause for re-filing delay should be assessed liberally.

---