JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J.
1. This petition is directed against an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, dismissing the application purported to have been made by the petitioner, the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as barred by time.
2. Three different orders were passed against the Corporation by the Income-tax Officer concerned in proceedings for the assessment of income-tax in respect of assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. The Corporation claimed certain exemptions under Sections 10(20) and 11 of the Act. However, the exemptions were disallowed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred two appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the "appellate authority"). These appeals were disposed of by orders dated August 1, 1978, and August 19, 1978, respectively. The first order pertained to the assessment year 1973-74 and the second related to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The appellate authority accepted the appeal of the Corporation in part and allowed it exemption under Section 10(20). It appears, it recorded no opinion regarding the exemption claimed under Section 11. The Income-tax Officer felt dissatisfied and, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). This appeal was allowed on September 17, 1980. The Tribunal held that the Corporation was not entitled to claim any exemption under Section 10(20). The Corporation, it appears, made an application purporting to be one under Section 254(2) for the rectification of an alleged mistake in the order of the Tribunal. According to it, the mistake was that the Tribunal had not considered the question of granting exemption under Section 11.
3. Order on these applications was reserved on July 4, 1981, and on September 8, 1981, the Tribunal disposed of the three applications by means of a common order. This order was communicated to the Corporation on September 15, 1981. The Tribunal rejected the applications made by the Corporation.
4. The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 792 of 1981 (Tax) before this court challenging the legality of the order dated September 8, 1981, passed by the Tribunal. This petition was dismissed in limine on November 3, 1981, with the following order:
"...The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file an application for reference and not by filing the present petition. Dismissed.
(Sd.) S.P. Singh (Sd.) R.R. Rastogi."
5. An application was made by and on behalf of the petitioner in this court on November 16, 1981, for the issue of a certified copy of the order passed on November 13, 1981, in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 792 of 1981. The copy was ready for delivery and was delivered to the representative of the Corporation on December 3, 1981. On December 7, 1981, Income-tax Reference Application Nos. 834, 835 and 836 of 1981 were filed by and on behalf of the Corporation before the Tribunal. These applications have been rejected by the impugned order.
6. The period of limitation prescribed for the filing of an application under Section 256(1) of the Act is 60 days from the date of the service of the order. Therefore, in the normal course, the applications should have been filed on or before November 17, 1981. However, if the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the order of this court is taken into account, there will be a delay of six days only. The Tribunal has taken the view that since the application could be filed without being accompanied by a certified copy of the order of this court, no allowance should be given to the Corporation for the time spent by it in obtaining the certified copy. It is to be remembered that the Writ Petition No. 792 of 1981 was dismissed by this court by a speaking order and the reason given was that the Corporation had an alternative remedy before the Tribunal by way of an application under Section 256(1). This was an important information to be given by the Corporation to the Tribunal. The only method by which such an information could be given was by producing a certified copy of the order of this court. That apart, in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Madanlal Das & SONS, AIR 1977 SC 523; [1976] 38 STC 543, the Supreme Court has taken the view that Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies even though a copy is not required to be filed along with the memorandum of appeal or petition for review application. The Supreme Court was dealing with a revision filed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the Corporation was entitled to take advantage of the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the order of this court.
7. The proviso to Section 256(1) empowers the Tribunal to permit a party to present an application under Section 256(1) within a further period not exceeding thirty days than the one prescribed in Section 256(1) if it (the Tribunal) is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting an application within the period specified.
8. In Sital Prasad Saxena v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1, the Supreme Court emphasised that let it be recalled what has been said umpteen times that rules of procedure are designed to advance justice and are so interpreted as not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring party. The Tribunal, therefore, committed a manifest error of law in not giving advantage to the petitioner of the time spent by it in this court in obtaining a certified copy of the order passed in the writ petition. It also failed to exercise the jurisdiction in not focussing its attention to the provisions as contained in the proviso to Section 256(1).
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before the Tribunal, no submission was made by and on behalf of the Corporation on the merits of the case. Sri S.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the Corporation, has made a statement at the bar that he had appeared before the Tribunal and he had not advanced any argument before the Tribunal on the merits of the case. There is no reason to disregard the statement made by a responsible member of the bar. The finding of the Tribunal, therefore, on the merits of the case stands vitiated.
10. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated August 11, 1982, is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to treat the Income-tax Reference Applications Nos. 834, 835 and 836 of 1981 as having been filed within time. It shall now proceed to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.