Special limitation scheme controls reference applications; postal dispatch is not timely presentation and delay cannot be condoned under the Limitation Act.

An application for reference under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 was not treated as timely where it was posted within limitation but received by the Tribunal after the prescribed period, because the applicable regulations deemed presentation by registered post only on receipt in the Tribunal office. The Tribunal also had no jurisdiction to condone delay by applying section 5 read with section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the special Act contained its own limitation scheme and operated as a self-contained code on limitation. The reference applications therefore remained time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for reference under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 was presented in time when it was despatched by registered post within limitation but received by the Tribunal after the expiry of the prescribed period; (ii) Whether the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing an application for reference under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 by applying section 5 read with section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether an application for reference under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 was presented in time when it was despatched by registered post within limitation but received by the Tribunal after the expiry of the prescribed period.

Analysis: The regulations made under the Act permitted presentation by registered post, but regulation 20(2) deemed a document sent by registered post to be presented on the date it was received in the office of the Tribunal. Regulation 28(2) applied regulation 20 to applications under section 60(1). As the applications were received after the last date prescribed by section 60(1), dispatch to the post office could not be treated as timely presentation.

Conclusion: The applications were not presented within time and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing an application for reference under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 by applying section 5 read with section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The Limitation Act, in particular sections 5 and 14, was held to govern applications to courts and not to tribunals or other authorities unless the special law clearly attracted those provisions. Section 69 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 expressly provided for computation of limitation for appeals and reference applications and indicated that the Act constituted a self-contained code on limitation. In that setting, section 5 could not be invoked to enlarge time before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay and the contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The reference applications remained time-barred and no direction could be issued to require the Tribunal to entertain them on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special fiscal statute contains its own limitation scheme and applies tribunal regulations deeming registered-post filing effective only upon receipt, the Tribunal cannot treat postal dispatch as presentation in time or invoke section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay.

---