ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RAIPUR vs. M/S GEEDAM COLD STORAGE PVT.LTD.

TAXC/8/2006HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01008108200615 June 2009Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR15 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellants, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Income Tax Officers, filed several appeals before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These appeals were filed after the prescribed limitation period of 120 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. Consequently, the appellants also filed applications under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to appeals filed before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given the specific time limits prescribed therein.

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. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Versus Nl/s Hongolndia (P) Ltd. and another, which, while dealing with pari materia provisions of the Central Excise Act, held that the nature of the remedy provided in a special law indicates the legislature's intent for it to be a complete code. The Court found that the scheme of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court also noted that Section 260-A(7), which makes CPC provisions applicable, is identical to a similar provision in the Central Excise Act, which did not lead to the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the Supreme Court's view. Therefore, all appeals filed beyond the prescribed 120 days were dismissed on the ground of limitation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1961, is applicable for condonation of delay in filing appeals before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the specific period of limitation prescribed therein? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions (Revenue's Counsel): The Revenue argued that the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a complete code in itself. They contended that Section 260-A(2)(a) mandates filing appeals within 120 days, and this longer period implicitly excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Versus Nl/s Hongolndia (P) Ltd. and another, and the Bombay High Court's Full Bench judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Velingkar Brothers. Respondent's Contentions (Assessee's Counsel): The respondents argued that the Income Tax Act is a complete code. They submitted that the mandatory 120-day period under Section 260-A(2)(a) implies the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. They also argued that the legislature consciously omitted provisions for condoning delay in High Court appeals, indicating an intention to exclude Section 5. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Versus Nl/s Hongolndia (P) Ltd. and another.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 5,Section 249,Section 253,Section 256(1),Section 256(2),Section 29(2),Section 35-G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Tax Case (Income Tax Appeal) No.21 of 2007 APPELLANT: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circlel, Bhilai Versus RESPONDENT: Shri Mahavir Prasad Verma, Prop Durga Jwellers, Jawahar Market, . Camp-2, Bhilai .T.A.No.49 Of 2003 APPELLANT: Chandra Shekhar Kastwar, S/o Late Shri Kapoorchand Kastwar, Aged about 43years, r/o Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) The Commissioner, Income Tax, Raipur (CG) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 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 Storage Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Forest Depot, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur (CG) Tax Case (Income Tax ADDeal)No.Q7 of 2006 APPELLANT: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,1(2)Raipur. Versus RESPONDENT: M/s Badger Green Field & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Samta Colony, Raipur Tax Case (Income TaxAppeaO No.7 of2008 APPELLANT: Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle2-1, Raipur Versus

RESPONDENT: Shri Vinod Goyial Nayapara Raipur APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: LT.A,No,13of2005 Income Tax

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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →