PEARL WOOLLEN MILLS vs. CIT (CENTRAL ) LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers

ITA/184/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095503201112 July 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, was not maintainable. The court noted that Section 260A was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, with effect from October 1, 1998. The impugned order of the Tribunal was passed on March 18, 1976, which predates the insertion of Section 260A. The assessee's counsel was unable to provide any justification for filing an appeal under this provision against such an old order. The High Court considered the appeal to be an abuse of the process of law and found no justification to entertain it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pearl Woollen Mills, Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, on March 18, 1976. This order pertained to the assessment year 1966-67. The appeal was filed in 2011, approximately 34 years and 13 days after the Tribunal's order. The assessee also filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application for condonation of this significant delay. The High Court questioned the maintainability of an appeal under Section 260A, which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, effective from October 1, 1998, against an order passed in 1976.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an appeal filed in 2011 under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, is maintainable when the impugned order was passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in 1976, given that Section 260A was inserted with effect from October 1, 1998? Assessee's contention: The assessee's counsel was unable to justify the filing of the appeal under Section 260A against an order passed prior to its insertion. The assessee sought condonation of delay through a Civil Miscellaneous Application. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the maintainability of the appeal or the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appeal No. 184 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Income Tax Appeal No. 184 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.7.2011 Pearl Woollen Mills, Ludhiana --- Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana --- Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.3.1976, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (in short “the Tribunal”) in ITA Nos.1497 & 1508/CHANDI/71-72, relating to the assessment year 1966-67. 2. A stale matter of the epoch of late seventies has been sought to be revived by the assessee by filing the instant appeal under Section 260-A of the Act. The order impugned in the appeal was passed by the Tribunal way back on 18.3.1976. Along with the appeal, the appellant has also filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 8087-CII of 2011 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for Income Tax Appeal No. 184 of 2011 2 condonation of delay of 34 years and 13 days in filing the present appeal.

On a query being put to the learned counsel for the appellant that when the provisions of Section 260A of the Act were inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 1.10.1998 only, how the appeal filed in the year 2011 challenging the order passed in the year 1976 is maintainable or that an appeal under Section 260A of the Act impugning the order passed in 1976 could now be filed, the counsel was unable to justify the filing of the appeal.

The instant appeal is sheer abuse of the process of law. We, therefore, do not find any justification to entertain this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) July 12, 2011 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE *rkmalik*

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →