Broad exclusion of copy-obtaining time under income-tax limitation rules allowed reference applications to proceed within time.

Section 67A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed broadly to exclude the day of the order and the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy when computing limitation for an application under section 66(1). The availability of a copy supplied under section 33(4) did not narrow that exclusion or impose an unstated condition on the statutory text. On the facts, the Court also accepted the explanation for delay and condoned it so the reference applications could be heard on merits. The applications were treated as within time and disposed of according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the Appellate Tribunal's order was excludable under section 67A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for computing limitation for an application under section 66(1), even though a copy of the order had been supplied under section 33(4). (ii) Whether the delay in filing the reference applications before the High Court should be condoned.

Issue (i): Whether the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the Appellate Tribunal's order was excludable under section 67A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for computing limitation for an application under section 66(1), even though a copy of the order had been supplied under section 33(4).

Analysis: Section 67A was construed as using wide language, providing exclusion of the day of the order and the time requisite for obtaining a copy when computing limitation for an application under section 66. The provision was held not to be confined to cases where filing of the copy was a procedural requirement, nor to cases where no copy had been supplied under section 33(4). The existence of a supply of the order under section 33(4) did not justify reading a limitation into the statutory language. The later form of section 268 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was noticed only as a corresponding provision, and could not narrow the earlier enactment.

Conclusion: The time requisite for obtaining the certified copy was excludable, and the reference applications were within limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing the reference applications before the High Court should be condoned.

Analysis: The Court accepted the explanation regarding receipt of the copies and also noticed the accompanying application and affidavit seeking condonation under the Limitation Act. On the facts, the delay was treated as deserving of condonation so that the matters could be heard on merits.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The applications under section 66(1) were directed to be treated as filed within time and to be disposed of according to law, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision for excluding the time requisite for obtaining a copy of an order for limitation purposes must receive its plain and wide effect, and cannot be restricted by implying conditions not found in the text.

---