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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/58/2002HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01001375200212 August 2009Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals were barred by limitation. The court noted that the respondent had raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals on the grounds that they were barred by limitation by one day and that no application for condonation of delay had been filed. The revenue's counsel did not dispute the delay. Citing its own order dated June 16, 2009, in Tax Case (Income Tax Appeal) No. 21 of 2007, the Court reiterated that the period for preferring an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is unextendable and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. Therefore, the instant appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (appellant/revenue) filed five 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, Nagpur. The appeals were filed against M/s Dayal Maghji and Co., Raipur (respondent). The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals, contending that they were barred by limitation by one day and that no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the appellant. The appellant's counsel did not dispute the delay in filing the appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are barred by limitation, considering the one-day delay and the absence of a condonation application. Assessee's Contention: The appeals are barred by limitation by one day, and no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant. The assessee relies on the High Court's order dated June 16, 2009, in Tax Case (Income Tax Appeal) No. 21 of 2007 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Bhilai vs. Shri Mahavir Prasad Verma, Prop. Durga Jewellers, Jawahar Market, Camp-2, Bhilai), which held that the period for preferring an appeal under Section 260A is unextendable and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel did not dispute the delay in filing the appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGAR'Hl I.T.A.N_Q. SS_/2002 Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur. t^?:^ RESPONDENT VERSUS M/s Dayal Mghji and Co. Malviya Road, Raipur. ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT^1961 \ .^"•^. sa asi! ^^t i,K.i;i.;*£^. \ •1,,,.Jii y -^^ .'.^ 7ST -tlWM^, ®fll'M'IS,Fs|<rlKH'J,< wiferihim^iit •fe^r ff D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRE^ HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHiANDRAKAIl, 33 I.T.A.Ko.58 of 2002 Appellant Resoondent Appellant Respondent Commi M/sDa Ralpur. LT.A.No.59 Of 2002 Comml M/sDa Raipur. I.T.A. tsioner of Income Tax, Raipur IVersus ~~ ~ Appellant Respondent Comml M/sDa Raipur. (Passed on Per Dhirendra Mishra.J Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, lea|, Shri Shashank Dubey, lea) Dayal Meghi &Co., Raipur. DRA MIISHRA. & isioner of Income Tax, Ratpur Versus 'al Maghji and Co. Malviya Road, l^al Mghjl and Co. Malviya Road, And ^10.61 of 2002 .sioner of Income Tax, Raipur Versus /al Mghji and Co. Malviya Road,

OltAL ORDER jl3T"AUGUST,2009) rned counsel for the appellant/revenue. ned Sr. Advocate for the respondent-M/s

•I'l. T=T ^ww^, vi-^ww, fsiyiiyy E'Si3g ':.;:'si! iwafisasi ^ '•-/ 2- '%?'?mqR •qpi?ETii' 're'st 7R^t ^S ST^tt. Sl-i^ The appellant/revenue ha^ the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in dated 29,5.2002 (Annexure A/l] Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, on the the memo of appeals. Shri Shashank Dubey, respondent, raised a prelimlnarl' appeals on the ground that the| and no application for condonati Referring to the order dated 16). (Income Tax Appeal) No.21 Commissioner of Income 74 Prasad Verma, Prop. Durga\ Bhilai, he submitted that the Section 260A of the Act, 196E Sections 4 to 24 including Secti< to the appeals preferred under The above position of ia( Rao, learned counsel appearing not dispute that there is one da^ In that ylew of the barred by iimitation. mattter Dhirendra Mishra Judge i filed these appeals under Sa:tion 260A of |short "the Act, 1961") against the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ubstantial questions of law as proposed in |earned Sr. Advocate appearing for the objection to the maintainability of these [same are barred by limitation of one day, it>n of delay has been flled by the appellant. ).6.2009 passed by this CbuTt in Tax Case of 2007 in the matter of Assistant ^x, Circle I, Bhilal Vs. Shri Mahavir Jewellers, Jawahar Market, Camp-2, ailowed for preferring the appeai under |1 is unextendable and the provisions of >n 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable •Act, 1961. Iw is not dlsputed by Shri S. Rajeshwara for the appellant/revenue and he also does ''s delay in flling these appeals. ', the instant appeals are dismissed as titne the R-N.Ghandrakar Judge

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →