ANITA CHADHA vs. CIT, LUDHIANA

ITA/706/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084843200922 January 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by Mrs. Anita Chadha (the appellant) against an order dated February 27, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’ (the Tribunal). The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2003-04. The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 23-day delay in filing the appeal before the High Court. The respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a complete code in itself, similar to the Central Excise Act, 1944, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. The Court noted that specific provisions within the Income-tax Act, such as Section 249(3) and the second unnumbered proviso of Section 143(1), explicitly provide for condonation of delay where intended by the legislature. However, Section 260-A(2)(a) prescribes a strict timeline of 120 days for filing an appeal to the High Court without any corresponding provision for condoning delay beyond this period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the reasoning in Hongo India (P) Ltd. is fully applicable. The application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed, and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as time-barred.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing an appeal beyond the period of 120 days prescribed by Section 260-A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be condoned by entertaining an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? Assessee's contention: The appellant sought condonation of delay by filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, the High Court's reasoning implies that the revenue would likely argue against the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in this context, aligning with the High Court's final decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 260-A(2)(a),Section 5,Section 249(3),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 706 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 22, 2010 Mrs Anita Chadha …Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, challenges order dated 27.2.2009, passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No. 615/Chd/2008 in respect of Assessment Year 2003-04. The only question of law which arises for determination of this Court is as under: “Whether the delay in filing of the appeal beyond the period of 120 days prescribed by Section 260-A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be condoned by entertaining an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?”

2.

Along with the appeal an application invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, the Limitation Act’), seeking condonation of 23 day

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →