Time-barred income-tax appeal refusal stays under limitation provision and does not create further appellate jurisdiction.

An order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refusing to admit a time-barred income-tax appeal is an order under section 30(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because it concerns only whether sufficient cause existed to condone delay and admit the appeal. It is not an order under section 31 merely because it finally ends the appeal. As a result, no further appeal lay to the Appellate Tribunal under section 33, and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to examine whether delay should have been condoned.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refusing to admit an appeal as time-barred is an order under section 30(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or an order under section 31 of that Act; (ii) whether such an order is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal and whether the Tribunal can examine condonation of delay.

Issue (i): Whether an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refusing to admit an appeal as time-barred is an order under section 30(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or an order under section 31 of that Act.

Analysis: An appeal presented beyond the prescribed period could be admitted only if sufficient cause for delay was shown, and an order passed on such presentation was confined to condoning or refusing to condone delay and the consequential admission or rejection of the appeal. The Court treated the later Supreme Court declaration as binding under Article 141 and held that a refusal to admit an appeal on the ground of limitation, even if arguably erroneous, does not become an order under section 31 merely because it effectively ends the appeal.

Conclusion: The order was an order under section 30(2) and not under section 31.

Issue (ii): Whether such an order is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal and whether the Tribunal can examine condonation of delay.

Analysis: Since the refusal to admit the appeal was not an order under section 31, no further appeal lay to the Tribunal under section 33. In consequence, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have condoned the delay.

Conclusion: No appeal lay to the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal could not go into condonation of delay.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee, affirming that the limitation-based refusal remained within section 30(2) and did not generate appellate jurisdiction under section 33.

Ratio Decidendi: An order refusing to admit a time-barred income-tax appeal for want of sufficient cause is an order under the limitation-and-admission provision, not an order on merits under the appellate disposal provision, and therefore does not give rise to a further statutory appeal.

---