Sankar Prasad Dev Burman and anr. Vs. Indumati Sahoo

.....extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - the petitioners (judgment-debtors) having failed to execute the sale deed, the opposite party (decree-holder) filed execution case no. 6. both the objections raised by..........of the argument. they are : (a) that the collector's permission could not be obtained due to certain defects in the lease renewal deed; and (b) that as the valuation of the holding in dispute is more than rs. 1,00,000, the sale deed cannot be executed without obtaining a clearance certificate as required under section 230a of the income-tax act. 4. so far as the first objection is concerned, the court below in paragraph 6 of his order has observed that in letter no. 4368, dated august 13, 1979, unconditional permission was accorded to the petitioners for the transfer of the suit property. in view of this position, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that this objection no longer arises for consideration. 5. the second objection raised by the petitioners is devoid of merit since section 230a of the i.t. act, 1961, which provides that no registering officer shall register a document which purports to transfer, assign, limit or extinguish the right, title or interest of any person to or in any property (other than agricultural land) valued at more than rs. 50,000, unless the certificate prescribed therein has been obtained, is confined to cases of voluntary deeds executed by assessees. it has no application to involuntary acts resulting in transfer, assignment, limitation or extinguishment of rights in property by the force of law or under an order of the court or under a decree whether based on a compromise or otherwise, (vide loganathan v. kapur) : [1972]83itr430(delhi) . in view of this settled position of law, objection of the petitioners is unsustainable. 6. both the objections raised by the petitioners having failed, the revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs of this proceeding.