TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f sugar amounting to Rs. 49,500. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Agra, partly allowed the appeal. Against the aforesaid order, two appeals were filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, respondent No. 2, one by the Income-tax Officer and the other by the petitioner. The Tribunal vide order dated March 31, 1987, dismissed the petitioner's appeal but allowed the appeal filed by the Income-tax Officer. The petitioner filed two reference applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act before respondent No. 2 for referring the question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order to this court along with an application to condone the delay in filing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner contended that August 1, 1987, and August 2, 1987, were holidays due to Saturday and Sunday and this period should have been excluded while counting the period of 30 days under the said proviso. He has referred to the provisions of section 4 of the Limitation Act which provides that where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens. The last day of filing the application under section 256(1) was July 31, 1987. This day was not a holiday. If July 31, 1987, had been a holiday, the petitioner would have been entitled to extension of time, as provided under section 4 of the Limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the omission to provide for limitation to a particular proceeding under the Limitation Act." In Prem Chand Bansal and Sons v. ITO [1999] 237 ITR 65 (Delhi), it was held that section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. In this case the court did not consider the proviso to section 256(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. ITAT [1986] 159 ITR 642 (All). This court held that the time spent in obtaining certified copy of the order will be excluded in view of the provisions contained in section 12 of the Limitation Act. This case has no application to the facts of the present case. It is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
