1982 (3) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of s. 256 of the Act is six months from the date on which the assessee or the Commissioner is served with a notice of the refusal to state a case to the High Court. According to the application filed for condoning the delay, which is C.M. No. 1292/81, the petitioner was served on 24th August, 1980, and hence if this is correct, the limitation period would expire on 23rd February, 1981. The explanation for the delay is that the record clerk of M/s K. A. Sethi, advocate, wrongly calculated the limitation period to expire on 11th March, 1981, " instead of 11th February, 1981 ". It was also stated that when the record clerk put the case for preparing the petition before the counsel, the mistake was detected, and it was found that the applicati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s entitled to get the benefit of a mistake by her counsel or his clerk as has been held in many reported cases. Reference was made to Kuldip Singh v. Krishan Kumar, AIR 1974 Delhi 145, decided by Prithvi Rai J. In that case, the clerk had misplaced the copy and there were exceptional circumstances for condoning the delay. What had happened was that the appeal was filed on 10th July, 1972, along with an application for exempting the filing of the certified copy of the judgment. (It was second appeal under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958). The limitation period expired on 1st August, 1972, but the certified copy was filed on 8th August, 1972, although it had been ready earlier and had been delivered for filing in the court. The explanation b....