ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHAVIR PRASAD VERMA

TAXC/21/2007HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01015150200715 June 2009Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR18 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellants, various Income Tax Officers and Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax, filed several appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. These appeals were filed after the prescribed limitation period of 120 days. Consequently, the appellants also filed applications under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The core issue revolved around whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for condonation of delay, is applicable to appeals filed before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, or if the Income Tax Act is a complete code in itself, precluding such applications.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a special law and a complete code in itself, intended by the legislature to govern all matters provided therein. The scheme of the Act supports the conclusion that the time limit prescribed under Section 260-A for filing an appeal before the High Court is absolute and unextendable by the court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Hongo India (P) Ltd., which held that even if a special law does not expressly exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, the court can examine whether the nature of the subject-matter and the scheme of the special law exclude their operation. The Court found the scheme of the Income Tax Act, particularly regarding the time limit for appeals to the High Court, to be absolute and unextendable. Consequently, since all the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed 120-day period under Section 260-A, they were dismissed on the ground of limitation. No costs were ordered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to appeals filed before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for condonation of delay? (Question of law) Assessee's Arguments: - The Income Tax Act, 1961, is a complete code in itself, providing for all aspects of income tax, including appeals and remedies. - Section 260-A(2)(a) mandates filing within 120 days, and this longer period implicitly excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. - The legislature consciously omitted provisions for condonation of delay in appeals to the High Court, as these appeals are preferred after multiple forums have considered the issue. - Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. M/s Hongo India (P) Ltd. Revenue's Arguments: - By virtue of Section 260-A(7) of the Income Tax Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) relating to appeals are applicable. - Under Order 41 Rule 3-A of the CPC, an application for condonation of delay is maintainable and applicable to appeals under Section 260-A. - Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is attracted, making Section 5 applicable to appeals under Section 260-A, as no specific provision for condonation of delay was made by the legislature for High Court appeals. - Reliance was placed on Full Bench judgments of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Velingkar Brothers and CIT Vs. Anandilal Poddar & Sons Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 5,Section 249,Section 253,Section 255,Section 29(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

' V

AFI&/“ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Tax Case (fncome Tax Appeal) No.21 of 2007 APPELLANT: Assistant Commissioner of Income — Tax, Circle 1, Bhilai Versus RESPONDENT: Shri Mahavir Prasad Verma l.T.A.No.49 of 2003 l APPELLANT: l i Chandra Shekhar Kastwar, Versus RESPONDENTS: Income Tax Officer & others Tax Case (income Tax Appeal)No.08 of 2006 APPELLANT: Assistant Commissioner of Income ' Tax, Circle 2 (1), Raipur Versus RESPONDENT: M/s Geedam Cold Sto‘rag’e Pvt. Ltd., Jagdaipur (CG) Tax Case (IncomeTax Appeal) No.07 of 2006 APPELLANT: I Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 1(2) Raipur. Versus RESPONDENT: ' M/s Badger Green Field & Finance Pvti Ltd., Samta Colony, Raipur Tax Case (income Tax Appeal) No.7 of 2008 APPELLANT: Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle 2—1, Raipur Versus RESPONDENT: Shri Vinod Goyal Nayapara Raipur l.T.A. No.13 of 2005 APPELLANT: Income Tax Officer-2, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Versus i RESPONDENT: l l Shri Mukui Deshiehara l Tax Case (income Tax Appeal) No.20 of 2006 APPELLANT: Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur Versus i l i RESPONDENT: i Surendra Kumar Kataria Tax Case (income Tax Appeal) No.18 of 2006 IAPPELLANT: l . i

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 →