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

PDF · subscribers

ITA/61/2002HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01005849200212 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 filed by the revenue were barred by limitation. The Court noted that the revenue did not dispute the one-day delay in filing the appeals. Furthermore, the revenue did not dispute the legal position, as argued by the assessee and supported by a previous order of the same Court in Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2007, that the time allowed for preferring an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is unextendable and the provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, are not applicable to such appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the ground of limitation. No other issues were decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The appellant/revenue filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 29.5.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench. The respondent/assessee, M/s. Durga Jewellers, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these appeals, contending they were barred by limitation by one day and no application for condonation of delay was filed. The respondent relied on a previous High Court order in Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2007, which held that the time limit for filing appeals under Section 260A is unextendable and the Limitation Act provisions do not apply.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are maintainable when they are filed with a delay of one day and no application for condonation of delay has been filed? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The appeals are barred by limitation as the time allowed for preferring an appeal under Section 260A of the Act is unextendable, and the provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, are not applicable to appeals filed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee relied on the High Court's order in 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). Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the one-day delay in filing the appeals or the legal position cited by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

t APPELLANT ‘ RESPONDENT : APPEAL UND ‘ wekP ,x ...-"' L”: v» ‘ .u' \ .-- ” (CHHAITISGARHI 1 ‘ i Q) ;i Com mlssgloner Tax Ralp VERSUS LT.A.N0. ,é '20.b2 . - ‘5: M/s Da' Malviya ECTION 260A O S I WACT 1961 « I . L‘ of IncOm‘e : ‘ I‘. r : I jf F IN THE HIGH COURT OF JU CATURE AT BILASPUR

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 →