JUDGMENT C.S.P. Singh, J.
1. The petitioners in this case are the heirs of late Bandit K.L. Misra. Wealth-tax assessments for the years 1962-63 to 1967-68 and 1969-70 to 1970-71 were made against the deceased. After these assessments an application for rectification was made before the Wealth-tax Officer. The rectification application was partly allowed by an order dated January 22, 1974. Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act before the Commissioner. It is alleged in the petition that the orders of rectification were not .served on the deceased personally. It was later, however, discovered that the clerk of the deceased had misplaced them. An application for certified copy of the order was made on October 18, 1974, and the certified copy of the order was received on May 29, 1975. The revisions were filed on June 24, 1975. They have been dismissed by the Commissioner by order dated July 25, 1975, as being time-barred. The reason given for the alleged delay in filing the revision has not been accepted.
2. In view of the contentions raised in this petition It is not necessary to consider as to whether the cause shown for the delay in filing the revision was sufficient. Under the Wealth-tax Act there is no express provision for serving the order of rectification on the assessee. Under Section 25(1), prov., Clause (c)(ii), an application for revision has got to be made within one year from the date of the order sought to be revised. Now this period of one year can start running only after the order of rectification is brought to the notice of the assessee. This may be brought about either by sending the order to the assessee by the department even if there is no such provision or where the assessee obtains a copy of the order. In the counter-affidavit a stand has been taken that on the petitioners' own case the order was served on the assessee on February 6, 1974; Thus, if time is counted from February 6, 1974, it would expire on the 5th February, 1975. The revision was filed on June 24, 1975, i.e., nearly more than 3 months after the time had run out counting from February 6, 1974, when the rectification order is said to have been served on the deceased. Now, if the law permits exclusion of time in obtaining certified copy of the order to be impugned, the revisions were within time, for application for certified copy was made on October 18, 1974, i.e., before the limitation for filing the revision had run out and the copy was received on May 29, 1975. Thus, a period of over 7 months was taken in obtaining a certified copy of the order. If this period of 7 months is added the revision would be within time. We are of the view that in view of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the provisions of Section 12(3) which provides for exclusion of time taken in obtaining a copy of the impugned order would apply to revisions filed under Section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act We are fortified in the view that we take by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubhchand Baghel AIR 1964 SC 1099, where the provisions of Section 12 were applied to an appeal arising under the Representation of the People Act.
3. In view of our conclusions above, we allow this petition and set aside the order of the Commissioner dated July 25, 1975, and direct him to hear the revisions afresh and decide them on merits at an early date. There will be no order as to costs.