CHANDRA SHEKHAR KASTWAR vs. I.T.O., DHAMTARI AND OTHERS

ITA/49/2003HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01004987200315 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, have filed several appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with applications for condonation of delay. These appeals were filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of 120 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The core issue revolves around the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning such delays in appeals filed before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. The revenue contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable, while the respondents argued that the Income Tax Act is a complete code and implicitly excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a special law and a complete code by itself, intended to govern all matters provided therein. The nature of the remedies provided suggests that the legislature intended it to be self-contained. 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 a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court reasoned that while Section 260-A(7) makes CPC provisions applicable, the specific scheme and intent of the Income Tax Act, as a special law, implicitly exclude the general provisions of the Limitation Act concerning condonation of delay. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mls Hongo India (P) Ltd., which held that even in the absence of express exclusion, the nature of the special law and its scheme can exclude the operation of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the appeals, having been filed beyond the prescribed 120 days, were dismissed on the ground of limitation. No issue was left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable for condoning delay in filing appeals before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given that the Income Tax Act provides a specific period of limitation (120 days) and is considered a complete code? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The Income Tax Act, 1961, is a complete code in itself, providing for all aspects of income tax levy, recovery, remedies, and appeals. - Section 260-A(2)(a) mandates filing appeals within 120 days, and this specific, longer period of limitation 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 issues. - Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Versus Mls Hongo India (P) Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: - Section 260-A(7) of the Income Tax Act makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) relating to appeals applicable to appeals under Section 260-A. - Order 41 Rule 3-A of the CPC, which deals with applications for condonation of delay, is 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 there is no express exclusion. - Reliance was placed on the Full Bench judgments of the Bombay High Court in CIT Versus Velingkar Brothers and CIT Versus Anandilal Poddar & Sons Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF HATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Tax Case (income Tax Appeal) No.21 of 2007 APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: APPELLANT: APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: APPELLANT: Assistant Commissioner of Income - Tax, Circle 1, Bhilai Versus Shri ahavir Prasad Verma, Prop Durga Jwellers, Jawahar Market, . Cam-2, Bhilai l.T.A.No.49 of 2003 Chandra Shekhar Kastwar, S/o Late Shri Kapoorchand Kastwar, Aged about 43 years, r/o Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) Versus income Tax Officer. Ward Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) The Commissioner, Income Tax, Raipur (CG) ‘ income Tax Appeilate Tribunal, gp RESPONDENTS: Nagpur Bench, Naur. Tax Case (income Tax Appeai) No.08 of 2006 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1 ), Raipur Versus M/s Geedam Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Forest Depot, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur (CG) Tax Case (income Tax Appeal) No.07 of 2006 ‘ Assistant Commissioner of income ax, 1(2) Raipur. T Versus M/s Badger Green Field & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Samta Coiony, RaipUr ' Tax Case (income Tax Appeal) No.7 of 2008 Assistant Commissionr of income, Circle 2-1, Raipu Versus CH M p e r

Shri Neelabh Dubey, counsel for'the respondent in Tax Case (income Tax Appeal)

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 →