S.Ali Ahmad, J.

1. This appeal under Sec.269H of the Income Tax Act was filed on: 6.11.1980 against an order dated 18.8.1980 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Sec.269G of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). According to the Stamp Reporter, the last date of limitation for filing the appeal was 5.11.1980, but since it was filed on 6.11.1980, it was barred by limitation. The office placed the limitation matter for orders,

2. Mr. Rajgarhia, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, namely, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Acquisition), contended that the stamp report was erroneous and that the appeal was filed well within time. Mr. Shreenath Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the appeal was barred by limitation and, therefore, it should be dismissed as such. During the course of argument, Mr. Rajgarhia filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of one day in filing the appeal on the grounds mentioned in that application. Mr. Shreenath Singh opposed this application also. In these circumstances, it is, therefore, necessary to consider as to whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation or not and in case it was filed beyond the period of limitation then as to whether the delay of one day in filing the appeal can be condoned.

3. As I have said above, the appeal is directed against an order dated 18.8.1980. Sec.269H(1) of the Act, inter alia, provides that an appeal may be preferred to the High Court within 60 days of the date on which the appellant is served with a notice of the order under Sec.269G of the Act. Admittedly, the appellate tribunal sent a copy of the order passed by it to the appellant on 6.9.1980. In case 60 days are added to 6th September. 1980, then we get 5.11.1980. The Stamp Reporter on the basis of this calculation has said that the last date of limitation was 5.11.1980 and, as such, the appeal which was filed on 6,11.1980 is barred by limitation. It, however, appears that an application for a certified copy was filed by the appellant on 29th October, 1980 and the same was obtained on 30th October, 1980. Mr. Rajgarhia on that basis contends that two days time should be added as the time requisite for obtaining certified copy of the order to the period of limitation which is 60 days. He contended that in case it was done then the last date of limitation was 7.11.1980and since the appeal was filed on 6.11.1980, it should be held to be well within time. The question, therefore, for determination is as to whether Sec.29(2) of the Limitation Act is applicable to an appeal under Sec.269H of the Act.

4. Sec.29(2) of the Limitation Act, inter alia, provides that for the purpose of determining the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal by any special or local law the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) snail apply only in so far as and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. Incase Sub-section (2) of Sec.29 of the Limitation Act is applicable to appeals under Sec.269H of the Act then it is patent that a period of two days, the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order, has to be added to the period of limitation under Sec.12(2) of the Limitation Act and if that is done, the appeal is within time. Arguments, therefore, have been advanced by the parties about the applicability of Sec.29(2) of the Limitation Act.

5. According to Mr. Rajgarhia, the Income Tax Act or Sec.269H of the Act does not expressly exclude the application of any of the provisions of the Limitation Act. According to learned Counsel, therefore, Sec.12 and also Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply in full to this appeal. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra -- . In that case, an election petition was filed beyond the peri