TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in law in applying the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act ? " Material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows: The assessee is a private limited company and the assessment year in question is 1975-76. The notice of demand under s. 156 of the Act was served upon the assessee on March 28, 1978. The assessee filed an application on May 2, 1978, under s. 146 of the Act for reopening the assessment, but as the application was not filed within one month from the date of service of the notice of demand, a prayer was made for condonation of delay. Reliance was placed by the assessee on the provisions of s. 5 of the Limitation Act. The ITO held that the provisions of s. 5 of the Limitation Act were not applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... courts governed either by the CPC or the Cr. PC, could be made applicable to applications made to Tribunals and authorities under other Acts. It was urged that the decision in [1970] 77 ITR 165, could not, therefore, be construed as an authority for the proposition that the provisions of s. 5 of the Limitation Act were not applicable to applications made under the I.T. Act, 1961. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Madan Lal Das Sons [1976] 38 STC 543. To appreciate the contentions advanced before us, it would be useful to refer to the provisions of 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. That provision reads as under : " Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in that case. This is evident from a perusal of the provisions of s. 184(4), s. 249(3), s. 253(5) and s. 256(1) of the Act. Therefore, as regards the powers to condone delay under the Act if sufficient cause is shown, the conclusion is irresistible that the Legislature intended the I.T. Act, 1961, to be a complete code by itself, so far as the question of condoning delay by the authorities in making applications by the assessees within the time prescribed by the various provisions of that Act. In our opinion, therefore, the scheme of the I.T. Act, 1961, excludes the operation of s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We find this view supported by the decision in Commr. of Agrl. I.T. v. Thalayar Rubber Industries Ltd. [1981] 131 ITR 162 (Ker) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t rule of interpretation, which overrides all others, is that a statute is to be expounded 'according to the intent of them that made it'. 'The will of the legislature is the supreme law of the land, and demands perfect obedience '. (See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., pp. 1, 2 and 25). 'Judicial power is never exercised', said Marshall C.J. of the United States, 'for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judges, always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature; or in other words, to the will of the law '. If the legislature wilfully omits to incorporate something of an analogous law in a subsequent statute, or even if there is a casus omissus in statute, the language of which is other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
