https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62856 The Tribunal held that the applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act were time-barred as they exceeded the prescribed limit. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation period should commence from the date the order was served on the Chief Commissioner, not the Commissioner. It rejected the validity of an understanding between the President of the Tribunal and the Chief Commissioner, stating statutory provisions must prevail. The applications were dismissed due to the delay exceeding 30 days, with no power to condone it, emphasizing the legislative intent for prompt disposal starting from service on the Chief Commissioner. en-us Tue, 06 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:22:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62856 The Tribunal held that the applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act were time-barred as they exceeded the prescribed limit. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation period should commence from the date the order was served on the Chief Commissioner, not the Commissioner. It rejected the validity of an understanding between the President of the Tribunal and the Chief Commissioner, stating statutory provisions must prevail. The applications were dismissed due to the delay exceeding 30 days, with no power to condone it, emphasizing the legislative intent for prompt disposal starting from service on the Chief Commissioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62856