JUDGMENT
N.D. Ojha, C.J.
1. An application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), was filed in this court by the assessee along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act inasmuch as the application under Section 27(3) of the Act had been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for such an application. The matter was listed before a Division Bench of this court which was of the opinion that there are conflicting views of this court with regard to the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently the matter deserved to be decided by a larger Bench. The two Division Bench decisions of this court which, according to the learned judges, contained conflicting views were CIT v. Gupta & Sons Pvt. Ltd., [1984] 146 ITR 506 and CIT v. Trilokinath, [1984] 147 ITR 613. The learned judges, therefore, referred the following question to a larger Bench :
” Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to an application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act when there is no express provision contained in the Wealth-tax Act excluding the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to this application ? ”
It is thus that this question has come up for consideration before us. The question, which came up for consideration in the case of Gupta & Sons P. Ltd., [1984] 146 ITR 506, 507 (MP) was:
” When there is no specific provision under the Income-tax Act, 1961, enabling the Income-tax Officer to condone the delay in making an application under Section 146, whether the Tribunal was right in law in applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act ? ”
It was argued before a Division Bench of this court in that case that in view of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act were applicable. This submission, however, did not find favour with the learned judges and they held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were not attracted to the case of an application filed under Section 146 of the Income-tax Act.
2. In the case of Trilokinath [1984] 147 ITR 613 (MP), on the other hand, the question which came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this court was as to whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to an appeal under Section 269H of the Income-tax Act and it was held, relying on Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, that since the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act had not been expressly excluded by Section 269H of the Income-tax Act, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were applicable.
3. In the instant case, we are not concerned with an application or appeal under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, we are concerned with an application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. We shall therefore, confine our discussion to the question referred to us, i.e., whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to an application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the cases on which reliance was placed by them, we are of the opinion that there is intrinsic evidence in the legislative history of Section 27 of the Act itself to indicate that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to an application under Section 27(3) of the Act. In this connection, we may point out that Section 27 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Amendment Act No. 46 of 1964, which came into effect from April 1, 1965, had nine Sub-sections. By the said Amendment Act No. 46 of 1964, Sub-section (8) and (9) were deleted. Sub-section (9) so deleted read as hereunder :
” Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, shall apply to an application to the High Court under this section.”
The term “application to the High Court under this section” contained in Sub-section (9) aforesaid obviously referred to the application contemplated by Section 27(3) of the Act. The reasons for deletion of Sub-section (9) of Section 27 are to be found in the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Notes on Clauses of the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Act, 1964. The relevant clause indicating the reasons for deleting Section 27(9) of the Wealth-tax Act runs as follows (See [1964] 53 ITR (St.) 111):
” Sub-section (9) having become redundant had been deleted.”
It is thus clear that the reason for deleting Sub-section (9) was not that Parliament was of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should not be applied to an application under Section 27(3) of the Act but the reason was that the said Sub-section (9) had become redundant. We have, therefore, to find out as to why Sub-section (9) had become redundant. The Indian Limitation Act, 1908, was substituted by the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, which came into force from January 1, 1964. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is the relevant section with the aid of which Section 5 of the Limitation Act is now sought to be applied to an application under Section 27(3) of the Act. This Section 29(2) as it stood in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, contemplated that Sections 4, 9 to 18 and 22 would apply to a special or local law only in so far as and to the extent to which they were not expressly excluded by the said special or local law and the remaining provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908, would not apply. In view of Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Section 5 of that Act did not apply to a special or local law and whenever it was considered necessary to apply the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to a special or local law, specific provision used to be made under the relevant special or local law. The Wealth-tax Act was enacted in the year 1957 and the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, was then in force. Consequently, unless Section 5 of the Limitation Act was made
specifically applicable to an application under Section 27(3) of the Act, it would not have been applicable with the aid of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act as it stood in the 1908 Act. It is apparent that Parliament intended to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act to an application under Section 27(3) of the Act and it was to give effect to this intention that Sub-section (9) was incorporated in Section 27 of the Act making Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, applicable to an application to the High Court under Section 27(3) of the Act.
5. The language of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which came into force with effect from January 1, 1964 is, however, materially different. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, inter alia, provides that sections 4 to 24 shall apply to a special or local law unless their application is expressly excluded, with the result that unless the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act was expressly excluded to an application under Section 27(3) of the Act, it would apply. Parliament would be deemed to be aware of this changed legal position at that time when it enacted the Amendment Act No. 46 of 1964 and, in our opinion, it is because of this changed legal position that it was of the view that it was no longer necessary to retain Sub-section (9) of Section 27 of the Act as it had become redundant and consequently deleted it.
6. The view which we have taken finds support from the decision of a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in A. Gupta Trust Estate v. CIT, [1984] 148 ITR 366. The various decisions on which learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance including the decision of the Supreme Court in Hukumdev v. Lalit Narain, AIR 1974 SC 480, have all been considered in the case of A. Gupta Trust Estate [1984] 148 ITR 366 (Gauhati). Since we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in that case and in view of what we have already indicated above, we do not find it necessary to discuss those cases.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, our opinion to the question referred to us, therefore, is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to an application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. The application made in the instant case under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may now be listed before the appropriate Bench of this court at Indore along with our opinion at an early date. Under the circumstances of the case, however, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.