Limitation on tax references excludes copy-obtaining time, but no reference lies from a non-appealable assessment.

For applications under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the time reasonably taken to obtain a copy of the appellate order was excluded in computing limitation by applying the general principle in the Limitation Act, so the limitation objection failed. However, where the assessment was treated as made under Section 23(4) for non-compliance with notices and no appeal lay from that assessment, the reference machinery under Section 66 was not available. The Court therefore accepted the applications as timely but held that a reference could not be entertained on a non-appealable assessment, and the substantive request failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for applications under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the time taken to obtain a copy of the appellate order could be excluded in computing limitation; (ii) whether a reference under Section 66 could be entertained where the assessment was made under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and no appeal lay from that assessment.

Issue (i): Whether, for applications under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the time taken to obtain a copy of the appellate order could be excluded in computing limitation.

Analysis: The period under Section 66(2) runs from the passing of the order, but the Court read Section 29 of the Limitation Act with Section 12 of that Act and held that the general principle of excluding the time requisite for obtaining a copy applies to applications under the special law. The wording of the statute did not justify excluding that time from the computation, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the copy-obtaining period.

Conclusion: The objection based on limitation failed and the applications were treated as within time.

Issue (ii): Whether a reference under Section 66 could be entertained where the assessment was made under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and no appeal lay from that assessment.

Analysis: The petitioners did not comply with the notices requiring production of books and further evidence, and the authorities below were justified in treating the assessment as one under Section 23(4). Since no appeal lay from such an assessment, the machinery of Section 66 was not attracted. The Court also noted that it could not reappreciate facts in a reference proceeding.

Conclusion: The reference application was not maintainable on this ground and the relief sought was refused.

Final Conclusion: Although the limitation objection was rejected, the absence of an appealable assessment under Section 23(4) prevented the Court from calling for a reference, so the application failed in substance.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under a special fiscal statute, the time reasonably spent in obtaining a copy of the order is excluded in computing limitation, but a reference cannot be invoked where the assessment is made under a provision that does not permit an appeal.

---