Taxation Appellate Tribunal can condone the delay in filing appeal.

The petitioner is a tax payer. Challenging the assessment made by the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, she filed an appeal to the Taxation Appeals Committee in S.No. 18/TAC-655/85. The appeal was filed under Rule 14 of Part (V) of Schedule (IV) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act. According to the petitioner, the rental income as fixed by the department was on the higher side and that the same should be fixed on an amount which would be equivalent to fair rent that may be fixed by any competent court. The Taxation Appeals Committee, however, rejected the appeal on the ground that the same has been preferred beyond 15 days and that there is no provision under the Act to condone the delay. This decision was delivered on 13. 1986 in the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 154 of Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 in the Court of Small Causes, Madras.

2. The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes by his order dated 1. 1988 passed a judgment in M.T.A. No.14 of 1986 as follows:

"The point: Admittedly the appeal filed before the Taxation Appeals Committee was out of time. The order of the Commissioner has been received by the appellant on 211. 1985 and she has filed the appeal on 112. 1985. The priod fixed for appeal against the order of the Commissioner is 15 days. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any provision under which this Court has powers to condone the delay. There is no provision in the Act to condone the delay probably, because the aggrieved landlords can prefer objections in respect of the subsequent assessments also. Since this Court has no power to condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the Taxation Appeals Committee this appeal has necessarily to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

............

............

Sd. N.Palaniappan,

Chief Judge,

Appellate Authority."

3. Thus, it is seen that the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, was also under the impression that he has no power to condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the Taxation Appeals Committee. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the above civil revision petition.

4. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.D. Adi Kesavalu, that this Court has inherent powers to entertain the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal within the meaning of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and hence, the dismissal of the application by the Chief Judge, is erroneous and liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice.

5. This civil revision petition was dismissed by Nainar Sundaram, J. (as he then was) on 13. 1991. During the pendency of the revision and at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner raised few intrinsic questions of law for consideration of this Court for disposing of this revision. According to him, Sec.29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the provisions contained in Sec.5 of the said Act shall apply in case of special or local law to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law and as the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 is a special as well as a local law and as there is nothing in that Act expressly excluding the applicability of Sec.5 of the Limitation Act to the appeals preferred before the Taxation Appeals Committee under Rule 14 of the Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, the Taxation Appeals Committee ought to have exercised the power vested in it to excuse the delay in preferring the appeal on sufficient cause being shown for that delay.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision in Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 105: (1976)1 S.C.C. 392, wherein the Apex Court has considered the applicability of Sec.5 of the Limitation Ac