Late appeal under Income-tax Act dismissed for limitation bar despite efforts for extension.

The appeal, filed one day late against an order under the Income-tax Act, was found to be barred by limitation. The court determined that the provisions of the Limitation Act allowing for extension did not apply to appeals under the specific section of the Income-tax Act in question. Despite efforts to condone the delay citing reasons such as the need for a certified copy and illness of the advocate's clerk, the court held that the appeal could not be saved by invoking the provisions of the Limitation Act. As a result, both the appeal and the application for condonation of delay were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation.
2. Whether the delay of one day in filing the appeal can be condoned under s. 5 of the Limitation Act.

Summary:

1. Whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation:

The appeal was filed on November 6, 1980, against an order dated August 18, 1980, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal u/s 269G of the I.T. Act. The stamp reporter noted that the last date for filing the appeal was November 5, 1980, making the appeal one day late. The appellant contended that the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order should be added to the limitation period, which would extend the deadline to November 7, 1980. The court examined whether s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time taken to obtain a certified copy, applies to appeals u/s 269H of the I.T. Act. The court concluded that Chapter XX-A of the I.T. Act is a complete code in itself, excluding the application of s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the appeal was held to be barred by limitation.

2. Whether the delay of one day in filing the appeal can be condoned under s. 5 of the Limitation Act:

The appellant filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the one-day delay, citing the opinion of the junior standing counsel that a certified copy was necessary and the illness of the advocate's clerk. The respondent opposed this application, and it was revealed that the memorandum of appeal was actually received by the advocate's clerk on November 5, 1980, not November 6, 1980, as initially claimed. Despite acknowledging the genuine mistake by the junior standing counsel, the court held that s. 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to appeals u/s 269H of the I.T. Act due to the self-contained nature of Chapter XX-A. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, and the application for condonation of delay was also dismissed as not maintainable.

---