IT !*u?^^l?^5 'ax Case ('lncome Tax ADDeal's No.5 of 2 APPELLANT: Assistant Commlssioner of mcome Spedal Range, Bhilai Versus RESPONDEN' Kls Amar Buiiders, Ganjpara, Dun •'uyet Presenf; Shri S. Rajeshvv'ara Rao, counsel for the appeliant. Shri Shashank Dubey, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Smiti Sharma, Advocats for the resoondent. Oivision Bench: Hon'bte Shri Dhirendra Mishra !a '!s^3 MEN /QH.-1 ^ -Q'r^HQ\ \£.U" 'i i -^i-UU^^ •!. The appeai preferred bythe appeliant/Revenue under Sectlon 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') has been admitted by this Court on foilowjnia substantia! csuestion of iaw:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the iTAT was justified i" holding that the provision for road repairs, as per condifions of the contract agreement I" profit & ioss account, is not a contlngent - tiabiiity but accrueci iiabi'ity and it is an admissible expenditure'?" 2. At the outset, Shri Shashank Dubey, ieamed senior advocate with Ms. Smiti Sharma, iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submltted that the instant appea' has been preferred with a delay of 25 davs and as such the same Is barrsd bv iaw of !irnJtatlon- Referrina to the order dated 16-6-2009 passed by this Court in Tax Case (Income Tax Appea!) No.21 of 2007 in the matter of Assistant Commissioner t - fiaiiavH r OT jncoms Tax, Clrcie I, BMM Prop. Durga Jwellers, Jawahar Market, Camp-2, BhiSai, he submltted that the time aiiowed for prefemng the appeal under Sectlon 260-A of the Act is un-extendabie and the provisions of Sectson 4 to 24 including 5 of the Limitation Act are "ot applicabie to the appeals Dreferred under the Act. The above positlon of !aw is not dlsputed by Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, learned counsei for the appeiiant and he aiso does not dispute that there is 25 davs deiav in fjiing this appeai, 4. !n that vlew of the matter, the appea! is dismissed as barred by I'mitation. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge 3awe •fl^