https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24435 An application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act was treated as within limitation because it was filed within six months of service of the Tribunal's refusal order. Re-presentation of a petition was regarded as a continuation of the original filing, so limitation was not defeated by defect removal and registry returns. Repeated registry objections, time taken to cure defects, and changes in the officers handling the matter were accepted as a sufficient explanation for delay. Counsel's default in removing defects was not attributed to the applicant for penal consequences. The delay was therefore satisfactorily explained and the application was not time-barred. en-us Fri, 19 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:32:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24435 An application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act was treated as within limitation because it was filed within six months of service of the Tribunal's refusal order. Re-presentation of a petition was regarded as a continuation of the original filing, so limitation was not defeated by defect removal and registry returns. Repeated registry objections, time taken to cure defects, and changes in the officers handling the matter were accepted as a sufficient explanation for delay. Counsel's default in removing defects was not attributed to the applicant for penal consequences. The delay was therefore satisfactorily explained and the application was not time-barred. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24435