Taxc/21/2007 Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mahavir Prasad Verma

V ANDTax Case (income Tax Aggeal) No.19 of 2006ORDER FOR CONSIDERATIONSd/—Dhirendra MishraJudgeR:—HON’BLE MR. R.N. CHANDRAKAR J1‘jay-Vu—Sd/-R.N. Chandrakar_;_fAJudgePOST FOR ORDER ONtéJUNE,[20]‘‘WT5d]-T HIGH [ OF][ CHHATTISGARH][ AT][ BILASPUR]Tax Case (income[Tax][ Aggeal)][ No.21][ of][ 2007] Shri Vinod Goyal Nayapara Raipurl.T.A. No.13 of 2005APPELLANT:Income Tax Officer-2, Rajnandgaon,District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.VersusRESPONDENT:Shri Mukul Deshlehara, Proprietor ofM/sDeshlehara,Udyog,VillageDewada,TehsilandDistrictRajnandgaon, ChhattisgarhTax Case (income Tax Aggeai) No.20 of 2006APPELLANT:income Tax Officer, JagdaipurVersus‘RESPONDENT:\Surendra Kumar Kataria,Proprietor,,M/sGauravTraders,MainRoad,Keshkai, District Baster (CG)Tax Case (income Tax Aggeai) No.18 of 2006APPELLANT:income Tax Officer, JagdaipurVersusRESPONDENT:Surendra Kumar Kataria,Proprietor,M/sGauravTraders,MainRoad,Keshkai, District Bastar (CG)ANDTax Case (income Tax AQQeai) No.1 9 of 2006APPELLANT:xincome Tax Officer Jagdaipur VersusSurendra Kumar Kataria,Proprietor,M/sGauravTraders,MainRoad,Keshkai, District Bastar (CG) RESPONDENT:Present: Shri S. Rajeshwarcounsel for the respondentRao,in l.T.A.counselNo.49/2003.for the appellants in all the appeals and Shri Ashish Surana, counsel for the appellant in l.T.A. No.49/2003. Tax Appeal)Shri Rajendra No.21/2007. Tripathi, counselfor the respondent in Tax Case (incomeELEM, W m Shri Neelabh Dubeycounsel for'the respondentin Tax Case (incomeTéx Appeal) No.7/2006 and! 8/2006. Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri[Dhirendra][ Mishra][ &] Hon’bie Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. 0 R DR(Passed[on]June, 2009) The foilowing order of the Court[was]passed[by][ Dhirendra][ Mishra,][ J.] .The appeliants herein have preferred[these][ appeais][ under][ Section][ 260-A][ of][ the]income Tax Act, 1961(in[short][ ‘the][ Act’)]laiong[with][ separate][ applications][ under]Section5oftheIndianLimitationActforcondonationof”delay,astheseappeals have beenpreferredafter the (prescribedperiodof limitationof 120days from the date on which the [order][ appealed][ against][ was][ received][ by][ the]appellants as provided under[Section][ 260-A][ sub—section][ 2][ of][ the][ Act.] .ShriRajeshwaraRao,learnedcounselfor theRevenuesubmittedthat theIncome Tax Act,1961and the provisions of Section[260-A][ are][ not][ complete]Code initself.By virtue of sub-section (7)[of][ section][ 260-A,]provisions[of][ the]CodeofCivilProcedurerelatingtoappealareapplicabletoappealunderSection260—A.UnderOrder41Rule3-AoftheCPC,applicationfor-condonationof delay,for condoning the delay[in][ appeal]is maintainable andthat procedureis applicable to appeal under[section][ 260-A][ and,]therefore,it. cannot be said that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to[appeals]under Section 260-A.Specific provisions have[been][ made][ for][ condonation][ of]delay under Section 249 and [253][ and][ application][ under][ Section][ 256(1)][ of][ the]ITActforcondoningthedelayauthorizingsuchAuthoritiesfi'ribunalstocondone thedelayonly because these Authorities/Tribunalsarenotcourts,however, no such provision has been[made][ under][ section][ 256](2)[and 260][ for]condoning the delay in[ filing][applications/appeals][ to][ the][ High][ Court,][ as]Section29(2) of the Limitation Actis attracted and, therefore, the[Legislature][ did][ not]il l. ‘£2; fee!it necessarytoexpresslyprovidefor condonationof delay by theHighCourt. 3.Relianceis placed onFull Bench Judgment[of][ the][ High][ Court][ of][ Bombay][ at]GoainthematterofCommissionerofincomeTaxVersusVelingkar2Brothers1 and in the[case][ of][ CIT][ Versus][ Anandilal][ Poddar][ &][ Sons][ Ltd.,]. l. ‘£2; fee!it necessarytoexpresslyprovidefor condonationof delay by theHighCourt. 3.Relianceis placed onFull Bench Judgment[of][ the][ High][ Court][ of][ Bombay][ at]GoainthematterofCommissionerofincomeTaxVersusVelingkar2Brothers1 and in the[case][ of][ CIT][ Versus][ Anandilal][ Poddar][ &][ Sons][ Ltd.,]. On the other hand,[Shri][ Neelabh][ Dubey][ Advocate][ appearing][ on][ behalf][ of][ the]respondents submitted[that][ the][ Income][ Tax][ Act,]1961is a complete Code[in]itself.it provides for aii aspects[relating][ to][ levy][ and][ recovery][ of][ income][ Tax,]proceduretherefor,remediesincludingappeals andrevisionsandpenaltiesand prosecution.Section 260-A provides[for][ an][ appeal][ to][ the][ High][ Court][ on]substantial questionof law.Sub—section2(a)of Section 260-Aprovidesinmandatory form that the[appeal]shall be filedbefore the Tribunal[within]120days andalongerperiodoflimitation,alreadyprovidedby theLegislature,impiiedly excluded[the][ applicability][ of][ Section][ 5][ of][ the][ Limitation][ Act.]Learnedcounselwouldsubmitthatcollectionofrevenuecannotbrookdelayand,therefore, the[Legislature][ by]providing[the][ different]period[of][ limitation,][ which][ is]longer than the period[of][ limitation]providedin Article 116 of[the][ Limitation][ Act]clearlyindicatesitsintentioninexcludingapplicationof Section5oftheLimitationActbynecessaryimplication.Hefurthersubmittedthatthelegislature consciously[omitted][ the]provision[relating][ to][ condonation][ of][ delay][ in]appealin the High Court[as][ appeals][ are]preferredin the High Court[after][ the]question[in][ issue][ has][ already][ been][ considered][ by][ three][ forums.]5.Relianceis placed on the judgment[of][ the][ Hon’ble][ Supreme][ Court][ dated][ 27th]March,2009deliveredinthematterof CommissionerofCustomsandCentralExcise Versus Mls[Hongo]india (P)Ltd., and anotherin SLP(C)No.14467/2007. 4. 1(2007)[209][ CTR](Bom)[ (FB)][ s:][ (2007)][ 289][ ITR][ 382][ (Bom)][ (FB):][ (2007)][ 161][ TAXMAN][ 264][ (Bom)]gFB)(2005)[199][ CTR][ (Cal)][ 539:][ (2005)][ 279][ ITR 104][ (Cal)].L 6.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7.Chapter-XXoftheActdealswithappealsandrevisions.Section249(1)providesfor formofappeal.Sub-section(2)ofSection249providesforlimitation of 3O daysinfiling the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).Sub-section(3)[empowers]the Commissioner (Appeals)to admit the appealprovidesfor formofappeal.Sub-section(2)ofSection249providesforlimitation of 3O daysinfiling the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).Sub-section(3)[empowers]the Commissioner (Appeals)to admit the appealafterexpirationof thesaidperiodif heissatisfiedthattheappellanthadsufficient cause for not presentingit within theperiod.Section 253 deals with_appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.Sub-section (3) of Section 253 provides forlimitation of 60 days from the date On which the order sought to be appealedagainst is communicated to the assessee or to the Commissioner, as the casemay be, for filing'appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.Under sub—section (5),sufficient cause for not presentingit within theperiod.Section 253 deals with_appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.Sub-section (3) of Section 253 provides forlimitation of 60 days from the date On which the order sought to be appealedagainst is communicated to the assessee or to the Commissioner, as the casemay be, for filing'appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.Under sub—section (5),theAppellateTribunalmayadmittheappealorpermitthefilingofmemorandumof crossobjectionafter expiryof therelevantperiodsatisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presentingit within the period.memorandumof crossobjectionafter expiryof therelevantperiodsatisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presentingit within the period.Section255(1)laysdowntheproceduretobefollowedbytheAppellateTribunal whereas, Section 260-A deals with appeals to the High Court, whichreads as under:—Tribunal whereas, Section 260-A deals with appeals to the High Court, whichreads as under:— “260A.(1) AnappealshalllietotheHighCourtfromevery order passedin appeal by the Appellate Tribunal,[beforethedateof establishmentof theNationalTaxTribunal]iftheHighCourtissatisfiedthatthecaseinvolves a substantial question of law. (2)[The][ Chief]Commissioner or the Commissioner or anassesseeaggrievedbyanyorderpassedbytheAppellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Courtand such appeal under this sub-section shall be-(a)filedwithin one hundred and twenty days fromthedate on which the order appealed against is received bytheassesseeortheChiefCommissionerorCommissioner;(b)[Omitted]by the Finance Act, 1999, w.e.f.1-6—1999. (c)intheformof a memorandumof appealpreciselystating therein the substantial question of Iaw involved.(3)[Whether][ the][ High][ Court][ is][ satisfied][ that][ a][ substantial]question[of][ law][ is][ involved][ in][ any][ case,]it shaii formulatethat question. (4)[The][ appeal]shall be heardonly on the question soformulated, and the respondents shall,at the hearing ofthe appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does notinvolve such question: Providedthatnothinginthissub—sectionshallbedeemed to take away or abridge the power of the courtto hear,for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on anyother substantial question of law not formulated byit,if itis satisfied that the case involves such question.-(5)TheHighCourtshalldecidethe' questionoflawformulatedanddeliveredsuchjudgmentthereoncontainingthegroundsonwhichsuchdecisionisfounded and may award such cost asit deems fit. (6)[The][ High][ Court][ may][ determine][ any][ issue][ which][ —] (a)has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal; Ol' (b)hasbeenwronglydeterminedbytheAppellateTribunal by reason of a decision on such question of lawas is referred to in sub-section (1).(7)[Save][ as][ othenivise]provided[in][ this][ Act,][ the]provisionsof the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), relatingtoappealstotheHighCourtshall,as far as maybe,applying the case of appeals under this section. 8.Sub-section (1) provides for appeal against the order of the Appellate TribunaltotheHighCourtprovidedthattheHighCourtissatisfiedthatthecaseinvolves substantial question of law.Sub—section (2) provides that the appealis to be filed within 120 days from the date on which the order appealed againstis received by the assessee or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, asthe case maybe.Sub—section(3)[stipulates][ that][ the][ High]Court,if satisfied,may formulate substantial question of law involved in any case and the appeal Sub-section(7)is to[be][ heard][ and][ decided][ only][ on][ question][ so][ formulated.]makestheprovisionsof CPC,1908,relatingtoappeaisto theHighCourt,it is[not][ otherwise]appiicable[in][ case][ of][ appeal][ under][ this][ section][ only][ where]provided[in][ the][ Act.] 8.Sub-section (1) provides for appeal against the order of the Appellate TribunaltotheHighCourtprovidedthattheHighCourtissatisfiedthatthecaseinvolves substantial question of law.Sub—section (2) provides that the appealis to be filed within 120 days from the date on which the order appealed againstis received by the assessee or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, asthe case maybe.Sub—section(3)[stipulates][ that][ the][ High]Court,if satisfied,may formulate substantial question of law involved in any case and the appeal Sub-section(7)is to[be][ heard][ and][ decided][ only][ on][ question][ so][ formulated.]makestheprovisionsof CPC,1908,relatingtoappeaisto theHighCourt,it is[not][ otherwise]appiicable[in][ case][ of][ appeal][ under][ this][ section][ only][ where]provided[in][ the][ Act.] einabove, question.ln view[of][ the][ specific][ provisions][ of][ the][ Act,][ as][ detailed][ her]for our[consideration][ is][ —whether][ Section 5][ of][ the][ Limitation][ Act][ is][ applicable][ in]?respect[of][ appeal][ filed][ under][ Section][ 260—A][ of][ the][ Act]10. Shri[Rajeshwara][ Rao,][ learned][ counsel][ for][ the][ appellants,][ contended][ that][ in][ the]absenceofanyspecificprohibltionintheActforcondoningthedelay,in Section[260—A][ of][ the][ Act,][ Section][ 29(2)][ of][ the][ Limitation][ Act][ is]particularly,applicable.He further[argued][ that][ sub—section][ (7)][ of][ Section][ 260-A][ specifically]makestheprovisionsof CPCinrelationtoappealbeforetheHighCourtRule[3-A][ of][ the]applicable[and,][ therefore,][ as][ per][ the][ provisions][ of][ Order][ 41]CPC[the][ High Court][ is][ empowered][ to][ entertain][ and][ decide][ any][ application][ for]condonation[of][ delay][ in][ filing][ the][ appeal.]‘whether Section 511. ln[the][ matter][ of][ Velingkar][ Brothers][ (Supra),][ the][ question]of the[Limitation][ Act,][ 1963][ shall][ apply][ in][ case][ of][ an][ appeal][ filed][ under][ Section]toa Larger260—Aof thelTAct,1961'[was]referredby theDivision[Bench]Answering[the][ reference][ in][ affirmative,][ the][ full][ Bench]Bench[for][ adjudication.] of the[Bombay][ High][ Court][ held][ thus:-] “Sec.260A itself provides that the provisions[of][ the][ CPC]as far[as]possible,[are][ applicable][ to]relating[to][ appeals]lt would[mean][ that][ s][ 260A][ is]the appeals[under][ s][ 260A]aspects[and][ matters][ With]not exhaustive[of][ all][ the][ facets]lt seems[that][ the]regard[to][ the][ appeals][ under][ s][ 260A]legislature[did][ not][ intend][ to][ make][ the][ prOVIsion][ of][ s][ 260A]watertightThe excluSion[of][ the][ prOViSions][ of][ ss][ 4][ to][ 24]ins 29(2)cannot[be]of theLimitation[Act as]prOVidedis not[readily][ inferred]implied[exclusion]lightly[inferred]shall[be][ filed'][ in]That the[legislature][ has][ used][ the][ words] sub—s.(2) mea'ns that the limitation for filing the appeal isas provided therein but that does not make 329(2) of theLimitation Act,1963 inapplicable.The High Court beingthe superior Courtthe power to condone the delayinfiling the appeal must be read to be existent, more so byvirtueof 529(2)of theLimitationAct,unlessthereisclear indication of its exclusion by implication.The useof the word[‘shall’]and the longer period of limitation (120days) are not indicators of such exclusion,Nor from thepositionthats.26OAissilentaboutapplicabilityof329(2),anyjustifiableinferencecanbedrawnforinapplicability of thatprovision.Whatis obvious neednotbestatedand,therefore,legislaturemay”havethoughtfitthatitwasnotnecessarytoexpressspecificallyaboutthepoweroftheHighCourttocondone the delay in view of existence of s29(2).Whenthestatuteissilent,thepresumptionisnotdrawnautomatically about the exclusionof s.29(2)or for thatmatters.5of theLimitationAct.Thereisnothingtoindicate that the application of s.29(2) is excluded exceptprovidingaspeciallimitation.Sec26OAdoesnotnecessarilyimplytheexclusionofss.4'to24oftheLimitationAct._[Therefore,]s.5of theLimitationActisapplicable in case of the appeals filed under s.26OA." 12. ln the matter of Anandilal Poddar & Sons Ltd. (Supra) also, the Calcutta High Court, while considering applicability of Limitation Act in appeal before the HighCourt under Section 260A of the lT Act, held that though Section 260A of the lTAct expressly provides for a period of limitation for preferring an appeal to theHigh Court, the same does not imply that the application of ss.4 to 24 of theLimitation Actis excluded.ln order to exclude the applicationof ss.4.to 24within the meaning of s29 of the Limitation Act, the necessary exclusion mustbe expressandsuchexpressexclusionistobeinferredbynecessaryimplicationfromthestatuteitself.TheCourtisnot supposedto presumeexclusion oni account of the statute beingsilent inrthat aspect.It cannot be It " W‘w held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application in respect of appealpreferred[under][ Section][ 260A.] 13. The Supreme Courtin the matter of M/s Hongo India (P) Ltd., and another‘whether(Supra),[while][ dealing][ with]question the High Courtin the referenceapplicationunder Section35H(1)of the unamendedAct,haspower[under]Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay beyond the periodprescribed[under][ the][ main][ statute]i.e.Central Excise Act’,held that the HighCourt has no power to condone the delayinfiling the[“reference]application"filedby the Commissioner under unamendedSection35H(1)of theCentralExcise Act, 1944 beyond the period of 180 days. .Shri Neelabh Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submittedthat though the judgmentinthematter of MlsHongoIndia(P)Ltd., andanother (Supra) is in relation to reference under Section 35H(1) of the CentralExcise Act,butthe‘ relevant provisions under Chapter XX of the Actis parimateria to the provisions of appeal under Chapter Vl-A of the Central ExciseAct,1944, therefore,ratio of law laid downin Mls Hongo lndia (P) Ltd., andanother shall apply to any appeal under Section 260A of the Act also. .Beforeappreciatingtheaboveargumentoflearnedcounselfortherespondents, we propose to examine the provisions relating to appeals underChapter Vl-A of the Central Excise Act.As per Section 35, against any order»passedbytheCentralExciseOfhcer,appealliestotheCommissionerofCentral Excise (Appeals).The appealis to be preferred within 6O days fromthe date of communication of such decision to the aggrieved party.Proviso tosub-section(1)enablestheCommissioner(Appeals)toallowittoberepresentedwithinafurtherperiodof30daysifheissatisfiedthattheappellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal withinthe aforesaid period of 60 days.Any person aggrieved by the decisions/orders ”xtMyJofa? .Beforeappreciatingtheaboveargumentoflearnedcounselfortherespondents, we propose to examine the provisions relating to appeals underChapter Vl-A of the Central Excise Act.As per Section 35, against any order»passedbytheCentralExciseOfhcer,appealliestotheCommissionerofCentral Excise (Appeals).The appealis to be preferred within 6O days fromthe date of communication of such decision to the aggrieved party.Proviso tosub-section(1)enablestheCommissioner(Appeals)toallowittoberepresentedwithinafurtherperiodof30daysifheissatisfiedthattheappellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal withinthe aforesaid period of 60 days.Any person aggrieved by the decisions/orders ”xtMyJofa? the Commissioner[of][ Central]Excise or the Commissioner (Appeals)[may]prefer[an][ appeal][ to][ the][ Appellate][ Tribunal][ within][ 3][ months][ from][ the date][ on]i which the order appealed is communicated to the aggrieved party.Sub-section(5)enables the Tribunalto condone thedelay evenbeyondtheprescribedperiodprovidedthere wassufficientcausefornotpresentingitwithinthatperiod.Under Section 35EE,revisionlies to the Central[Government.]Undersub-section(2),applicationundersub-section(1)istobemadewithin3months from the date[of][ communication.]Provisoto sub-section(2)[enables]the revisional authority[to][ condone][ the][ delay][ for][ a][ further]period[of][ 90][ days.]Unamended Section[35-G]provides[for][ appeal][ to][ the][ High][ Court.]Sub-section2(a) enables the[aggrieved]person[to][ file][ an][ appeal][ to][ the][ High][ Court][ within]180 days from the date[on][ which][ the][ order][ appealed][ against][ is][ received][ by][ the]aggrieved party.There is no provision[to][ condone][ the][ delay][ in][ filing][ the][ appeal]beyond prescribed period[of][ 180][ days.]Unamended Section[35H]provides[for]referenceapplicationtotheHighCourt:Undersub-section(1),theCommissioner of Central[Excise][ or][ other]party[within][ a]period[of][ 180][ days][ of]the date on which he[ is][ served][ with][ notice][ of][ an][ order][ under][ Section][ 35C][ direct]the Tribunal torefer to the High[Court][ any]questionof law arising from[such]order of the Tribunal.Application for reference[ is][ to][ be][ made][ to][ the][ High][ Court]within 180 days and[there][ is][ no]provision[to][ extend][ the]period[of][ limitation][ for]filingapplicationto theHigh Court beyond[the][ said]period[and][ condone][ the]delay. 16.After close scrutiny[of][ the]provisions[contained][ in][ Chapter][ Vl-A][ of][ the][ Central]Excise Act,1944, we find substancein submission of[learned][ counsel][ for][ the]appellants that the provisions[contained][ in][ Chapter][ VI—A][ of][ the][ Central][ Excise]Act, 1944, which deals[with][ appeal,]is pari materia to[the]provisions[contained]in Chapter XX of[the][ Act,][ which][ also][ deals][ with][ appeals][ and][ revisions][ under][ the]IT Act. 17.lnthematterofAhmedabadPvt.PrimaryTeachers’Assn.VersusAdministrative Officer and others3, the question before the Hon’ble SupremeCourt wasinterpretationof definitionof[“Employee" ]as containedinSection2(e)ofthePaymentofGratuityAct,1972.Interpretingthedefinitionof‘Employee’Administrative Officer and others3, the question before the Hon’ble SupremeCourt wasinterpretationof definitionof[“Employee" ]as containedinSection2(e)ofthePaymentofGratuityAct,1972.Interpretingthedefinitionof‘Employee’withtheexternalaidofstatutesinparimateria,theHon’bleSupreme Court observed thus:-Supreme Court observed thus:- “12. We have critically examined the definition clauseinthelight of the arguments advanced oneither side andhavecompareditwiththedefinitionsgiveninotherlabour enactments.Onthedoctrineof[“pari]materia",reference to other statutes dealing with the same subjector forming part of the same system is a permissible aid totheconstructionofprovisionsinastatute.SeethefollowingobservationscontainedinPrinciplesofStatutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh (8m Edn.),Syn.4,at pp.235 to 239:“Statutes in pari materia “12. We have critically examined the definition clauseinthelight of the arguments advanced oneither side andhavecompareditwiththedefinitionsgiveninotherlabour enactments.Onthedoctrineof[“pari]materia",reference to other statutes dealing with the same subjector forming part of the same system is a permissible aid totheconstructionofprovisionsinastatute.SeethefollowingobservationscontainedinPrinciplesofStatutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh (8m Edn.),Syn.4,at pp.235 to 239:“Statutes in pari materia lt has already been seenthat astatute must beread as a whole as words are'to be understoodin theirread as a whole as words are'to be understoodin theircontext.Extensionofthisruleofcontextpermitsreferencetoother statutesinparimateriai.e.statutesdealing with the same subject-matter or formingpart [of]thesamesystem.ViscountSimondsinapassagealreadynoticedconceivedit tobearight andduty toconstrue every wordof astatuteinitscontext and heused the word context in its widest sense including[‘other]statutesinparimateria’.Asstatedby LordMansfield‘where there are different statutes in pari materia thoughmadeatdifferenttimes,orevenexpired,andnotreferringtoeachother,rtheyshallbetakenandconstrued together, as one system and as explanatory ofeach other’.referencetoother statutesinparimateriai.e.statutesdealing with the same subject-matter or formingpart [of]thesamesystem.ViscountSimondsinapassagealreadynoticedconceivedit tobearight andduty toconstrue every wordof astatuteinitscontext and heused the word context in its widest sense including[‘other]statutesinparimateria’.Asstatedby LordMansfield‘where there are different statutes in pari materia thoughmadeatdifferenttimes,orevenexpired,andnotreferringtoeachother,rtheyshallbetakenandconstrued together, as one system and as explanatory ofeach other’. N The application[of][ this][ rule][ of][ construction][ has][ the]merit of[avoiding][ any][ apparent][ contradiction][ between][ a]it allowsseries of[statutes][ dealing][ with][ the][ same][ subject;]the use of[an][ earlier][ statute][ to][ throw][ light][ on][ the][ meaning]itof a phrase[used][ in][ a][ later][ statute][ in][ the][ same][ context;]permits[the]raisingof a presumption,in the absence[of]any context[indicating][ a][ contraryintention,][ that][ the][ same]meaning[attaches][ to][ the][ same][ words][ in][ a][ later][ statute][ as]inanearlierstatuteifthewordsareusedinsimilarit enables[the][ use][ of]connection[in][ the][ two][ statutes;][ and]alaterstatuteasparliamentaryexpositionofthemeaningofambiguousexpressionsinanearlierstatute.u n / 18. Inthe matter[of][ Sirsilk]Ltd. VersusTextiles[Committee][ and]others4,theHon’ble Supreme[Court][ while][ considering][ a's][ to][ what][ statutes][ are][ considered][ to]beinparimateria,referredto“StatutesandStatutoryConstruction"bySutherland[thus:—] “Statutes are considered to be in pari materia to pertain'theyto the[same][ s]ject—matter[when]relate to[the][ same]personorthigs,ortothe sameclassof personsorthing, or[have][ the][ same]purpose[or][ object.](Statutes[and]Statutory[Cons]uction, Vol.2, p.535,[3rd][ edn.)"] / 18. Inthe matter[of][ Sirsilk]Ltd. VersusTextiles[Committee][ and]others4,theHon’ble Supreme[Court][ while][ considering][ a's][ to][ what][ statutes][ are][ considered][ to]beinparimateria,referredto“StatutesandStatutoryConstruction"bySutherland[thus:—] “Statutes are considered to be in pari materia to pertain'theyto the[same][ s]ject—matter[when]relate to[the][ same]personorthigs,ortothe sameclassof personsorthing, or[have][ the][ same]purpose[or][ object.](Statutes[and]Statutory[Cons]uction, Vol.2, p.535,[3rd][ edn.)"] 419.lnthematter of[J.K.]SteelLtd., VersusUnionoflndi'a[and]others5,theHon’ble[Supreme][ Court,][ while][ considering][ pari][ materia][ provisions][ of][ Central]ltem 26AA[—][ Tariff][ Act](1934),[Sch.l][ entry]Excises and[Salt][ Act](1944),[Sch.l,]in pari materia63 (36),heldin paragraph-29[of][ the]judgment[that][ Acts][ being]must be[taken][ together][ as][ forming][ one][ code][ and][ as][ interpreting][ and][ enforcing]each other.ln para-26[of][ the][ above]judgment,[referring][ to][ its][ earlier][ judgment]it wasin the matter[of][ C.A.][ Abraham][ V.][ l.T.O.,][ Kottayam][ {AIR 1961][ SC][ 609},]observed[that]‘ln interpreting a fiscal statute the Court cannot proceed to makeHon’ble[Supreme][ Court,][ while][ considering][ pari][ materia][ provisions][ of][ Central]ltem 26AA[—][ Tariff][ Act](1934),[Sch.l][ entry]Excises and[Salt][ Act](1944),[Sch.l,]in pari materia63 (36),heldin paragraph-29[of][ the]judgment[that][ Acts][ being]must be[taken][ together][ as][ forming][ one][ code][ and][ as][ interpreting][ and][ enforcing]each other.ln para-26[of][ the][ above]judgment,[referring][ to][ its][ earlier][ judgment]it wasin the matter[of][ C.A.][ Abraham][ V.][ l.T.O.,][ Kottayam][ {AIR 1961][ SC][ 609},]observed[that]‘ln interpreting a fiscal statute the Court cannot proceed to make 4 1989 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 168 5 Ala/1,910,.sunncjvl5 COURT 1173 V......gooddefICIenCIesIfthere may be[any;][ th'e][ Coun][ must]Interpret the statute[as]Itstands and[in][ case][ of][ doubt][ in][ a][ manner][ favourable][ to][ the][ tax][ payer.”]gooddefICIenCIesIfthere may be[any;][ th'e][ Coun][ must]Interpret the statute[as]Itstands and[in][ case][ of][ doubt][ in][ a][ manner][ favourable][ to][ the][ tax][ payer.”] ‘ii‘xw’“[m)] 20. The Hon’ble[Supreme][ Court][ after][ elaborately][ dealing][ with][ the][ above][ provisions]of the Central Excise[Act][ in][ detail][ has][ negated][ the][ argument][ based][ on][ Section]29(2)of theLimitation Act thatin absence of[any][ express]exclusionof theprovisions[of][ Limitation][ Act][ in][ any][ speciai][ iaw][ ss.4][ to][ 24][ of][ the][ Limitation][ Act]would be applicable.lt has been observed[thus:] V......gooddefICIenCIesIfthere may be[any;][ th'e][ Coun][ must]Interpret the statute[as]Itstands and[in][ case][ of][ doubt][ in][ a][ manner][ favourable][ to][ the][ tax][ payer.”]gooddefICIenCIesIfthere may be[any;][ th'e][ Coun][ must]Interpret the statute[as]Itstands and[in][ case][ of][ doubt][ in][ a][ manner][ favourable][ to][ the][ tax][ payer.”] ‘ii‘xw’“[m)] 20. The Hon’ble[Supreme][ Court][ after][ elaborately][ dealing][ with][ the][ above][ provisions]of the Central Excise[Act][ in][ detail][ has][ negated][ the][ argument][ based][ on][ Section]29(2)of theLimitation Act thatin absence of[any][ express]exclusionof theprovisions[of][ Limitation][ Act][ in][ any][ speciai][ iaw][ ss.4][ to][ 24][ of][ the][ Limitation][ Act]would be applicable.lt has been observed[thus:] “In this regard, we have to see the scheme of the speciallawhere in this case[ is][ Central][ Excise][ Act.]The nature[of]the’remedy provided[therein][ are][ such][ that][ the][ legislature]intendedit to be a complete[Code][ by][ itself][ which”][ alone]should govern[te]h[ several][ matters]provided[by]it.If, onan examination[of][ the][ relevat]nprovisions,it is clear thattheprovisionsoftheLimitationActarenecessarilyexcled,ud then[the][ benefits][ conferred][ therein][ cannot][ be]calledin aid to supplement[the]provisions[of][ the][ Act.]Inourconsideredview,thateveninacasewherethespecial law does[not][ exclude][ the'provisions][ of][ Sections][ 4]to 24of theLimitation Act by[an]expressreference,itwouldnonethelessbeopentothecountoexaminewhetherandtowhatextent,thenatureofthoseortehnatureofthesubject—matterandprovisionsschemeof thespeciallaw exclude theiroperation.Inotherwords,theapplicabilityoftheprovisionsftheLiomtation Act,[therefore,][ to][ be]judged[not][ from][ the][ ter]msrofthe Limitation[Act][ but][ by][ the]provisionsof the CentralExcise Act relating[to][ filing][ of][ reference][ application][ to][ the]High Court.The scheme of the[Central][ Excise][ Act,]1944supporttheconclusionthatthetimelimitprescribedunder Section[35H(1)][ to][ make][ a][ reference][ to][ High][ Court]is absolute and[unextendle]ab[ by][ court][ under][ Section][ 5of]the Limitation[Act.]It is well settled[law][ that]it is the dutyof the court to[respect][ the][ legislative][ intent][ and][ by]givingliberalinterpretation,limitation cantnobeextendedbyinvoking theprovisions[of][ Section 5][ of][ the][ Act.”] l l 21.We have[already][ reproduced][ the]relevant provisions[of][ the][ Income][ Tax][ Act]contained[in][ Chapter][ XX,][ which][ relates][ to][ appeals][ and][ revisions.][ We][ have][ also]out thesalient[features][ of][ the]provisions[under][ Chapter][ Vl-A,][ which]pointeddeals withappeals[under][ the]CentralExcise[Act.]Both the acts[have][ been]enacted by[the][ Central]Legislature.The Central[Excise][ Act][ was][ enacted][ to]consolidate[and][ amend][ the][ law][ relating][ to][ central][ duties][ on][ excise][ whereas,]the lncome[Tax][ Act,]1961was enactedto consolidate[and][ amend]thelawrelating to[income][ tax][ and][ super][ tax.]Both the acts[are]periodically[amended]throughFinance Acttogiveeffect to thefinancialproposalsof theCentralGovernment[for][ the][ relevant][ financial][ years][ and][ thus][ have][ the][ same][ purpose]“pari materia",reference[to][ Central]and object.Therefore,[on][ the][ doctrine][ of]Excise Act[ is][ a]permissible[aid][ to][ the][ cohstrtiction][ of][ provisions][ of][ the][ Act.] learned counsel.As far as the[arguments][ advanced][ by][ Shri][ Rajeshwara][ Rao,]for the appellants[herein][ based][ on][ judgment]ofFull Benchof the BombayHigh Court[that][ sub—section](7)[of][ Section][ 260A,of][ the][ Act][ makes][ the][ provisions]therefore,[the]of CPC applicableinrelation to[appeal][ to][ the][ High][ Court][ and,]Income Tax[Act]isnot a complete[Code]is concerned,[from]perusalof sub-section (9)[of][ Section‘35-G][ of][ the][ Central][ Excise][ Act,][ we][ find][ that][ the][ same][ is]exactly[identical][ as][ sub—seCtion](7)[of][ Section][ 260A][ of][ the][ Act.] learned counsel.As far as the[arguments][ advanced][ by][ Shri][ Rajeshwara][ Rao,]for the appellants[herein][ based][ on][ judgment]ofFull Benchof the BombayHigh Court[that][ sub—section](7)[of][ Section][ 260A,of][ the][ Act][ makes][ the][ provisions]therefore,[the]of CPC applicableinrelation to[appeal][ to][ the][ High][ Court][ and,]Income Tax[Act]isnot a complete[Code]is concerned,[from]perusalof sub-section (9)[of][ Section‘35-G][ of][ the][ Central][ Excise][ Act,][ we][ find][ that][ the][ same][ is]exactly[identical][ as][ sub—seCtion](7)[of][ Section][ 260A][ of][ the][ Act.] 23. ln the[matter][ of][ Ravulu][ Subba][ Rao][ and][ others][ Versus][ Commissioner][ of]Income Tax,[Madrass,]in paragraph-10it has been[held][ that][ the][ Courts][ must]therefore construe[the]provisions[of][ the][ Indian][ Income][ Tax][ Act][ as][ forming][ a]code completeinitself and[exhaustive][ ofthe][ matters][ dealt][ with][ therein,][ and]ascertain[what][ their][ true][ scope]is.In paragraph-16,it has been[further][ held]thus: “Tosumup,theIndian .lncomeTaxActisaselfcontainedcodeexhaustiveofthemattersdealtwithcontainedcodeexhaustiveofthemattersdealtwith I, thereinanditsprovisions[show]anintentiontodepartfrom the common rule, qui facitper aliumfacitper se.itsintention againis that a firm should be givenbenefit offrom the common rule, qui facitper aliumfacitper se.itsintention againis that a firm should be givenbenefit ofS.23(5)(a),onlyifitisregisteredunderS.26-Ainaccordance with the conditions laid downin that sectionandtherules framedthereunder.Andas thoserulesaccordance with the conditions laid downin that sectionandtherules framedthereunder.Andas thoserulesrequiretheapplicationtobesignedbythepartnerinperson,thesignaturebyanagentonhisbehalfisinvalid.”person,thesignaturebyanagentonhisbehalfisinvalid.” 24. Thus, relying upon principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mls Hongo India (P) Ltd., and another (Supra), we hold that theIncome Tax Act,1961is a speciallaw.Thenature of the remedy'providedtherein are such that the legislature intendedit to be a complete code by itselfwhich alone should govern the several matters provided byit.The scheme ofthe Income Tax Act,1961,support the conclusionthat timelimit prescribedunder Section 260A tofile an appealbefore the High Courtis absolute andunextendable by court under Section 5 of theLir‘nitation Act and the limitationcannot be extended by invoking the provisions of Section 5 of theLimitationAct. l \ )25.[Since][ all][ the][ appeals]herein have been preferred beyond the prescribed periodof 120 days under Section 260A of the Act,the same are dismissed on theground[of][ limitation.] No orders as to costs. Sdl-Dhirendra MishraJudge Sd/-RN. ChandrakarJudge ;