TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the opinion that there are conflicting views of this court with regard to the applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently the matter deserved to be decided by a larger Bench. The two Division Bench decisions of this court which, according to the learned judges, contained conflicting views were CIT v. Gupta Sons Pvt. Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 506 and CIT v. Trilokinath [1984] 147 ITR 613. The learned judges, therefore, referred the following question to a larger Bench : " Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to an application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act when there is no express provision contained in the Wealth-tax Act excluding the operation of section 5 of the Limitation Act to this applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication or appeal under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, we are concerned with an application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. We shall therefore, confine our discussion to the question referred to us, i.e., whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to an application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the cases on which reliance was placed by them, we are of the opinion that there is intrinsic evidence in the legislative history of section 27 of the Act itself to indicate that section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to an application under section 27(3) of the Act. In this connection, we may point out that section 27 of the Act, as it stood pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Act is now sought to be applied to an application under section 27(3) of the Act. This section 29(2) as it stood in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, contemplated that sections 4, 9 to 18 and 22 would apply to a special or local law only in so far as and to the extent to which they were not expressly excluded by the said special or local law and the remaining provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908, would not apply. In view of section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, section 5 of that Act did not apply to a special or local law and whenever it was considered necessary to apply the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act to a special or local law, specific provision used to be made under the relevant special or local law. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 27 of the Act as it bad become redundant and consequently deleted it. The view which we have taken finds support from the decision of Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in A. Gupta Trust Estate v. CWT [1984] 148 ITR 366. The various decisions on which learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance including the decision of the Supreme Court in Hukumdev v. Lalit Narain, AIR 1974 SC 480, have all been considered in the case of A. Gupta Trust Estate [1984] 148 ITR 366 (Gauhati). Since we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in that case and in view of what we have already indicated above, we do not find it necessary to discuss those cases. In view of the foregoing discussion, our opinion to the question referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
