TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 extended section 5 of that Act to an application for reference made to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; (ii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was a court for the purpose of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Issue (i): Whether section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 extended section 5 of that Act to an application for reference made to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: Section 29(2) applies the provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act to periods of limitation prescribed by a special or local law, but only within the scheme of the Limitation Act. The relevant scheme of the Act, including the articles in the Third Division and sections 4 and 5, shows that the applications contemplated are applications to courts. The application for reference under section 66(1) was made to the Appellate Tribunal, not to a court, so the benefit of section 5 could not be invoked through section 29(2).
Conclusion: Section 29(2) did not make section 5 applicable to the reference application; the plea for condonation failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was a court for the purpose of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Analysis: The Tribunal exercised judicial power and determined disputes between the assessee and the revenue, but it was not part of the ordinary hierarchy of civil courts. It was constituted to decide disputes arising under the Income-tax Act, followed its own procedure, was not governed generally by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure, and included accountant members, all of which indicated that it was a judicial tribunal rather than a court in the strict sense. The Limitation Act therefore could not be applied to it as though its proceedings were proceedings in a court.
Conclusion: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not a court, and section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was unavailable.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal correctly rejected the time-barred reference application, and the challenge to its refusal to condone delay failed.
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, including section 5, apply only to applications before courts unless the special law clearly provides otherwise, and a tribunal exercising judicial power is not a court merely because it adjudicates disputes and has some trappings of a court.
TaxTMI 
