Jheky] lnL;&;g fuxjkuh jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e 1955 ¼ftls rRipkr~ la{ksi esa ^vf/kfu;e* dgk tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk 230 ds vUrxZr jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] Jhxaxkuxj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 31-8-2001 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gSaA 2- la{ksi esa izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd oknh mnkjke us izfroknh Vgyflag] lsokflag ,oa jktLFkku ljdkj ds fo:) vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 183 ds vUrxZr ,oa jktLo okn 65@96 lgk;d dysDVj] vuwix<+ ds le{k izLrqr fd;k] ftls mUgksaus muds fu.kZ; fnukad 27-1-98 }kjk oknh dk okn fMØh dj izfroknhx.k dks oknxzLr Hkwfe pd 7 ds ¼,½ ds eqjCck ua- 137@33 ds fdyk ua- 1 rk- 13 o 20 dh 14 ch?kk Hkwfe eqjCck ua- 157@20 ds fdyk ua- 1 rk- 3] 8] 9] 13] 18] 19 dh 7 ch?kk 18 fcLok Hkwfe dqy 21 ch?kk 18 fcLok Hkwfe ij ls csn[ky djus ds vknsk ikfjr fd;sA mDr fu.kZ; o fMØh ls vlarq"V gksdj izfroknh la- 1 o 2 us jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] Jhxaxkuxj dSEi jk;flaguxj ds le{k izFke vihy izLrqr dhA vihy ds lkFk ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 dh /kkjk 5 dk izkFkZuk i= e; kiFki= izLrqr fd;kA i{kdkjksa dks lquus ds ipkr~ izFke vihy U;k;ky; us muds fu.kZ; fnukad 31-8-2001 }kjk ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr izLrqr izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj djuk mfpr u le>rs gq, mls fujLr dj fn;k ,oa vihy dks vof/k ckf/kr gksus ls vLohdkj dj fn;kA mDr fu.kZ; ls {kqC/k gksdj izkFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k la- 1 o 2 us ;g fuxjkuh jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj esa isk dhA 3- i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk x;kA 4- vizkFkhZ la- 1 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us izkjfEHkd vkifRr mBkrs gq, dgk gS fd vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr fu.kZ; ,o fMØh fnukad 31-8-2001 ds fo:) vihy fu/kkZfjr gS u fd fuxjkuhA vr% fuxjkuh blh vk/kkj ij fujLr dh tk;sA 5- izkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izFke vihy U;k;ky; us xq.kkxq.k ij vihy dk fu.kZ; u dj vihy dks vof/k ckf/kr ekudj [kkfjt fd;k gSA fu.kZ; fnukad 31-8-2001 fMØh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrkA dsoy ek= izFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk fMØh cuk ysus ds dkj.k ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd fu.kZ; fnukad 31-8-2001 ds fo:) vihy gh gksxh pkgs mls izFke vihy U;k;ky; us xq.kkxq.k ij fuf.kZr ugha dh gksA fu.kZ; fnukad 31-8-2001 xq.kkxq.k ij ugha ikfjr fd;k x;k] bl dkj.k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr fuxjkuh gh iks"k.kh; gSA vius dFku ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus vkjvkjMh 1980 i`"B 412] vkjvkjMh 1983 i`"B 9 U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk lgkjk fy;kA 6- eSaus i{kdkj ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr rdksZ ij euu fd;kA 7- ;kelqUnj kekZ cuke iUUkkyky tsloky ,.M vnlZ ¼2005¼1½ ,llhlh i`"B 436 = RLW 2005(2) SC 189) esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us dgk gS fd%& iSjk la- 9%& The specific question involved came to be considered by this Court in Mela Ram and Sons vs. CIT 1956 SCR 166 . This Court held that an appeal presented out of time is an appeal and an order dismissing it as time-barred is one passed in an appeal. This Court referred to and followed the view taken by the Privy Council and by this Court in the two respective decisions above referred to. This Court quoted with approval the observations of Chagla, C.J. in K.K. Porbunderwalla vs. CIT (1952 (21) ITR 63 (Bom.) P.66) to the following effect (SCR P. 176) ``[A] I though the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not hear the appeal on merits and held that the appeal was barred by limitation his order was under Section 31 and the effect of that order was to confirm the assessment which had been made by the Income Tax Officer. iSjk la- 9-1%& ``In Sheodan Singh vs. Daryao Kunwar ( 1966 (3) SCR 300 rendered by four Learned Judges of this Court, one of the question that arose was whether the dismissal of all appeal from a decree on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation was a decision in the appeal. This Court held : (SCR pp. 308 H-309B) ``We are therefore of opinion that where a decision is given on the merits by the trial Court and the matter is taken in appeal and the appeal is dismissed on some preliminary ground, like limitation or default in printing, it must be held that such dismissal when it confirms the decision of the trial Court on the merits itself amounts to the appeal being heard and finally decided on the merits whatever may be the ground for dismissal or the appeal. iSjk la- 12%& ``Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Ratansingh vs. Vijaysingh ( 2001 (1) SCC 469 ) rendered by two learned Judges of this Court and pointed out that it was held therein that dismissal of an application for condonation of delay would not amount to a decree and, therefore, dismissal of an appeal as time barred was also not a decree. That decision was rendered in the context of article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and in the light of the departure made from the previous position obtaining under Article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908. That decision was rendered in the context of article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and in the light of the departure made from the previous position obtaining under Article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908. But we mustpoint out with respect that the decision of this Court in Mela Ram and Sons and Sheodan Singh were not brought to the notice of Their Lordships. The principle laid down by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Mela Ram and Sons and that stated in Sheodan Singh was, thus not noticed and the view expressed by the two-Judge Bench, cannot be accepted as laying down the correct law on the question. ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh O;oLFkk ds lanHkZ esa esjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 31-8-2001 ds fo:) vihy gh iks"k.kh; gSA 8- ifj.kkeLo:i vizkFkhZ la- 1 }kjk mBkbZ xbZ izkjfEHkd vkifRr Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA rn~uqlkj izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fuxjkuh iks"kuh; ugha gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA 9- fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA