TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 1084
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee-appellant under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the judgment and orders dated 31.8.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow for the assessment year 1994-95. The appeal is barred by limitation. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. In view of the Full Bench of the this Court in the case of CIT vs. Farooqui & others,317 ITR 305 Allahabad (Full Bench), the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Since, the application for condonation of delay is rejected, the appeal is accordingly dismissed too." Learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Waseeq-uddin Ahmad submits that the aforesaid order was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch) where it was observed: "Sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that wherein any special or local law, a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by its Schedule is provided, the provisions of section 3 of the 1963 Act shall apply as if such period was the period prescribed by the Schedule to the 1963 Act. It also provides that for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act shall apply only in so far as and to the extent they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. The special law providing for a period of limitation and that being different from the period prescribed by the Schedule to the 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under section 260 A of the 1961 Act is not subject to the provisions contained in Section 4 to 24 of the Act as provided under section 29 (2) of the 1963 Act. In view of the languages of Order XLI, rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it does not give any additional right to claim condonation under this provision." The Full Bench decision has followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo India Limited (2009) 315 ITR 449 SC, where it was observed that the delay cannot be condoned beyond the statutory period, unless there is some specific provision. Needless to mention that in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with on the basis of such declaration of law. The amendments is applicable to future cases to avoid uncertainty as per the ratio laid down in the case of M. A. Murthy v. State of Karnatka; 264 ITR 1 SC, where it was observed that prospective over-ruling is a part of the principles of constitutional canon of interpretation and can be resorted to by this Court while superseding law declared by it earlier. It is a device innovated to avoid the reopening of settled issues, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, and to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. In other words, actions taken contrary to the law declared prior to the date of declaration are validated in larger public interest. It is not possible to anticipate the decision....