ASSTT.COMM.OF INCOME TAX,RAIPUR vs. M/S DAYALAL MEGHJI and CO., RAIPUR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the respondent/assessee had raised a preliminary objection regarding the appeal being barred by limitation by three days and the absence of a condonation of delay application. The appellant/revenue's counsel did not dispute the delay. Crucially, the Court acknowledged that the time allowed for preferring an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is unextendable and that the provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5 for condonation of delay, are not applicable to such appeals. Based on this established legal position, which was not contested by the revenue, the High Court found the appeal to be instituted beyond the prescribed time and therefore, unsustainable. The operative direction was that the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation.
What were the facts?
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Raipur (appellant/revenue) filed an Income Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated October 21, 2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. The appeal was filed against M/s Dayalal Meghji & Co. The respondent/assessee raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, contending it was barred by limitation by three days, and no application for condonation of delay had been filed. The appellant did not dispute the delay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation by three days, and if so, whether the delay can be condoned in the absence of an application for condonation. Assessee's Contention: The appeal is barred by limitation as it was filed three days late, and no application for condonation of delay was filed. The assessee relied on the principle that the time allowed for preferring an appeal under Section 260A is unextendable and that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24, including Section 5, of the Limitation Act are not applicable to appeals preferred under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee referred to a previous order of the High Court in Tax Case (Income Tax Appeal) No. 21 of 2007. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the three-day delay in filing the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHTTISGARH AT BILASPUR Dmsmn Bench‘ § wssistant Conunissidfler of Income Tax Circle 1— 1 Raipur ‘ J M/s Dayalal Meghjl & Co Malv1ya Road a Ralpur M” Income Tax anneal u/s 260 A of Incor§1e Tax Act 1961 w/I Income Tax Appeal No. 0 [2006 A 1 s . £
Wm v. W 200 amm (W) WWW ‘ WWW WWW WW§$€QE€W éz'Wan’w Appellant Commissioner 9f Income Tax, Circle—1- Respondent al Meghji and Co. Malviya Road, I Per Dhirendra Mishra,J Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, lea ed cou nse! for the appeliant/revenue. Shri Shashank Dubey, lear ed Sr. Advocate for the respondent. The appellant/revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in s ort f‘the Act, 1961”) against the order dated,215‘ October, 2005 (Annex re A/l) passed by‘ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur on the substantiaTquestions of law as proposed in the memo of appeal. i Shri Shashank Dubey, med Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent, raised a preliminar objection to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the s me is barred by limitation of three days, and no application for condonatio of delay has been filed by the appellant. Referring to' the order dated 16. .2009 passed by this Court in Tax Case \‘ (income Tax Appeal) No.21 \\ f 2007 in the matter of Assistant i i skl 1 [2008 1,00,000. i i / \ \\
mm m 200 ‘mm (W3) WWW mmm mmm L WW§W®QR %31'm31r%§i Camp-2, Bhilai, he submitted that the tim allowed for preferring the appeal under Section 260A of the Act, 1961 is unextendable and the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 including Section 5 of‘the Limitation Act are not applicable to the appeals preferred under th Act; 1961. The above position of law i not disputed by Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for th appellant/revenue and he also does not dispute that there is three days' d lay in filing this appeal. a In that view of the matter, e instahtiwwed by limitation. ‘ Dhirendra Mishra Judge t esKi: R.N. Challdl‘akar Judge 5, ., .. ,1 ,..f ”naiwt, , Sdl- w h ‘
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
