Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live. In computing the limitation for an appeal or application under the Act, the day of service of the order and the time taken to obtain a copy of the order are excluded.
Finance Act, 2026: No amendment. The Finance Act, 2026 does not touch section 268.
Nature / mechanism: A limitation-computation rule benefiting the appellant: the day of service and the copy-obtaining time are left out of account.
Litigation profile: Procedural; little litigation — candour rule, read with the liberal condonation jurisprudence.
A. COMMENTARY
How the limitation clock is computed
Section 268 ensures that an appellant is not prejudiced by the time inherently consumed in receiving the order and procuring a certified copy: the day on which the order was served and the period spent in obtaining a copy are excluded from the limitation prescribed (e.g. the 30 days under section 249(2) or 60 days under section 253(3)). It works in tandem with the condonation powers in sections 249(3), 253(5) and 260A(2A), so that genuine, explained delay does not defeat a meritorious appeal.
B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim)
Reproduced verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended up to the Finance Act, 2025); the Finance Act, 2026 makes no change to this section. Inline numerals in square brackets are the bare Act's amendment-footnote markers.
Exclusion of time taken for copy.
268. In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal or an applica-tion under this Act, the day on which the order complained of was served and, if the assessee was not furnished with a copy of the order when the notice of the order was served upon him, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of such order, shall be excluded.
Cluster 1 — Cognate: limitation construed to advance justice
Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
Relevance Reflects the justice-oriented approach with which limitation provisions (and section 268's exclusions) are applied so as not to shut out a meritorious appeal on technical grounds.
CHAPTER XX — APPEALS AND REVISION | F.—General
Section 268 — Exclusion of Time Taken for Copy
Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live. In computing the limitation for an appeal or application under the Act, the day of service of the order and the time taken to obtain a copy of the order are excluded.
Finance Act, 2026: No amendment. The Finance Act, 2026 does not touch section 268.
Nature / mechanism: A limitation-computation rule benefiting the appellant: the day of service and the copy-obtaining time are left out of account.
Litigation profile: Procedural; little litigation — candour rule, read with the liberal condonation jurisprudence.
A. COMMENTARY
How the limitation clock is computed
Section 268 ensures that an appellant is not prejudiced by the time inherently consumed in receiving the order and procuring a certified copy: the day on which the order was served and the period spent in obtaining a copy are excluded from the limitation prescribed (e.g. the 30 days under section 249(2) or 60 days under section 253(3)). It works in tandem with the condonation powers in sections 249(3), 253(5) and 260A(2A), so that genuine, explained delay does not defeat a meritorious appeal.
B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim)
Reproduced verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended up to the Finance Act, 2025); the Finance Act, 2026 makes no change to this section. Inline numerals in square brackets are the bare Act's amendment-footnote markers.
Exclusion of time taken for copy.
268. In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal or an applica-tion under this Act, the day on which the order complained of was served and, if the assessee was not furnished with a copy of the order when the notice of the order was served upon him, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of such order, shall be excluded.
C. AUTHORITIES
Candour rule — computation rule; cognate condonation authority noted.
Cluster 1 — Cognate: limitation construed to advance justice
Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
Relevance Reflects the justice-oriented approach with which limitation provisions (and section 268's exclusions) are applied so as not to shut out a meritorious appeal on technical grounds.