- (1.) It is pointed out that this appeal covers two assessment years. The court fee paid is to be accepted in respect of the first assessment year. The appellant shall put in additional court fee for the second assessment year within a period of eight weeks. In default, the appeal shall be treated as against the assessment year 1991-92 and so far as the assessment year 1995-96 is concerned, the same shall stand dismissed in default of putting in the deficit court fees within the period stipulated above.
(2.) Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act: Application of the Limitation Act: Whether excluded:
(3.) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal by the Department by 137 days. Learned counsel for the respondent took a novel point, that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no manner of application in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in view of the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963. According to him, the Income-tax Act is admittedly a special Act. A special period of limitation has been prescribed in Sub-section (2) of Section 260A. In the absence of any specific provision referring to the Limitation Act, though Sub-section (7) refers to the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeals under which are governed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act, then by necessary implication the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act is excluded. He relied on the decision in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. In the said decision referring to Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, it was held that it is not essential for the special or local law to, in terms, exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act. It is sufficient, if on a consideration of the language of its provisions relating to limitation the intention to exclude can be necessarily implied. Learned counsel for the respondent attempted to explain that Section 260A having not provided for condonation of delay, as is provided in Section 256(1), by necessary implication has excluded the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, being hit by Section 29 of that Act.;