Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applications under Section 66(1) were barred by limitation and whether the time requisite for obtaining certified copies of the appellate orders had to be excluded under Section 67A.
Analysis: Section 67A mandated exclusion, in computing limitation for an application under Section 66, of the day on which the order was made and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order. The existence of a plain copy did not deprive the assessee of the statutory benefit, and the absence of a certified copy could not be used to defeat the right to seek reference where the assessee had applied for one. The Tribunal also should not have rejected the assessee's statement that applications for certified copies had been made, there being no material to disbelieve it.
Conclusion: The applications were not time-barred and had to be treated as made within time.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded, the Tribunal's rejection was set aside, and the applications were directed to be received and proceeded with according to law, with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under Section 66, the period requisite for obtaining a copy of the order must be excluded as a matter of statutory mandate, and the statutory benefit cannot be denied merely because a plain copy was available or because the authority failed to act on the copy application.