https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24852 An appeal under section 269G(1) of the Income-tax Act was required to be accompanied by at least one certified copy of the order under rule 48F and Form No. 37F, and the expression "certified copy" was read with reference to the Evidence Act because Chapter XX-A and the Rules contained no definition. The time spent in obtaining that certified copy was excluded for limitation purposes, since the appeal could not reasonably be filed without the required copy. Section 268 was held inapplicable to this distinct procedural scheme. The appeal was therefore not time-barred, and exclusion of the copy-obtaining period was allowed. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:19:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24852 An appeal under section 269G(1) of the Income-tax Act was required to be accompanied by at least one certified copy of the order under rule 48F and Form No. 37F, and the expression "certified copy" was read with reference to the Evidence Act because Chapter XX-A and the Rules contained no definition. The time spent in obtaining that certified copy was excluded for limitation purposes, since the appeal could not reasonably be filed without the required copy. Section 268 was held inapplicable to this distinct procedural scheme. The appeal was therefore not time-barred, and exclusion of the copy-obtaining period was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24852