CIT, FARIDABAD vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

ITA/686/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084820200920 January 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The core issue in all appeals was whether a delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed 120 days under Section 260-A(2)(a) could be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) was the appellant, and the assessees were Shri Gurbachan Singh and Market Committee, Pipli. The High Court was considering applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing these appeals.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a self-contained code, 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 unnumbered second proviso to Section 143(1), explicitly provide for condonation of delay where the legislature intended it. However, Section 260A(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 applications seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were dismissed, and consequently, the appeals were 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: Not explicitly recorded in the judgment. The judgment focuses on the Revenue's appeals and the applications for condonation of delay. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue filed applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The judgment implies the Revenue's contention was that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply to condone the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: January 20, 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad …Appellant Versus Shri Gurbachan Singh …Respondent ITA No. 687 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad …Appellant Versus Shri Gurbachan Singh …Respondent ITA No. 669 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal …Appellant Versus Market Committee, Pipli (Kurukshetra) …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the appellant (in ITA Nos. 686 & 687 of 2009). Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant (in ITA No. 669 of 2009)

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 686, 687 and 669 of 2009, which have been filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, against the orders passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi and Chandigarh Benches (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). The only question of law which arises for determination of this Court is as under: “Whether the delay in filing of the appeal beyon

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 →