COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. M/S DAYAL MEGHJI AND COMPANY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/59/2002HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01001376200212 August 2009Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the revenue were barred by limitation. The revenue did not dispute the one-day delay in filing the appeals. Furthermore, the revenue did not dispute the legal position, as contended by the respondent, that the time allowed for preferring an appeal under Section 260A of the Act is unextendable and that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24, including Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are not applicable to appeals preferred under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, in view of the undisputed delay and the non-applicability of the Limitation Act for condonation, the instant appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation. No specific finding was made on the merits of the substantive questions of law proposed in the memo of appeals.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (appellant/revenue) filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated May 29, 2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench. The respondent was M/s Dayal Meghji and Co. The appeals were filed with a delay of one day. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals due to this delay, arguing they were barred by limitation as no condonation application was filed. The respondent contended that the time for preferring appeals under Section 260A is unextendable and the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are not applicable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are barred by limitation due to a one-day delay, and if so, whether the delay can be condoned. Assessee's contentions: The appeals are barred by limitation as they are delayed by one day and no application for condonation of delay has been filed. The time allowed for preferring appeals under Section 260A is unextendable, and the provisions of Sections 4 to 24, including Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are not applicable to appeals preferred under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee relied on a previous order of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2007 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Bhilai Vs. Shri Mahavir Prasad Verma, Prop, Durga Jewellers). Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not dispute the one-day delay in filing the appeals and did not dispute the position of law as argued by the assessee regarding the applicability of the Limitation Act to Section 260A appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A BILASPUR IN THE H1 ‘ T OF JUDICATU (CHHA ISGARIil I.T.A.No. 5) /2002 / APPELLANT Commissioner Tax, Rajur. VERSUS of Income REPONDENT S M/s Dayal Mghji and C0. Malviya Road, Raipur. /‘/’ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX 5% f. pg,“ v ACT 1961 ‘né/ ” T UR : p

WWW, m,W WW; W 2w mum (W)

\D?‘ mm Wk; 2m ‘ 0 mm Wk; 2m ‘ 0 ha filed these appeals under Section 260A of The appellant/revenue the Income Tax Act 1961 (In short “the Act 1961’3 against the ordet ‘ dated 29 5 2002 (Annexure A/1 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tnbunai Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, on the ubstantlal quesnons of law as proposed m the memo of appeals. the Shri Shashank Dubey, arnecl Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent raised a prelrmlna objection to the maintainability of these appeals on the ground that the same are barred by limitation of one day and no application for condonati n of delay has been filed by the appellant Case Referring to the order dated v1 .6.2009 passed by this Court in Tax (income Tax Appeal) No..21 of 2007 in the matter of Assistant Mahavir' Mahavir' Prasad Verma, Prop, Durga Jewellers, Jawahar Market, Camp-2, Bhilaf, he submitted that the time allowed for preferring the appeal under Section 260A of the Act, 1961 is unextendable and the provisions or Sections 4 to 24 Including Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the appeals preferred under the Act, 1961. The above position of law ls not disputed by Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and he also does not dispute that there is one dair’s delay in filing these appeals. as In that View of the matter, the instant appeals are dismissed barred by wgtion Sd/— l. Sdl' R.N. Chandrakar Dhirendra MiShra I Judge ’ in, Judge r 11/2oox—1,00,nor;.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →