INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. MUKUL DESHLAHRE

ITA/13/2005HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01002294200515 June 2009Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR17 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

These are multiple appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The appeals were filed after the prescribed limitation period of 120 days from the date of receipt of the order being appealed against. The Revenue had filed applications under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of this delay. The appeals involved various assessees, including individuals and private limited companies, and concerned assessment years that are not explicitly stated for all cases. The procedural history relevant to these appeals is the delay in filing and the subsequent applications for condonation of delay.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a special law and intended to be a complete code by itself, governing the 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 a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court reasoned that while Section 260-A(7) makes CPC provisions applicable to appeals, the specific scheme and intent of the Income Tax Act, particularly the prescribed period of limitation for High Court appeals, implicitly excludes the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Hongo India (P) Ltd., which emphasized respecting legislative intent and not extending limitation by invoking Section 5. Consequently, all appeals 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 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? Assessee's Arguments: The Income Tax Act, 1961, is a complete code in itself. Section 260-A(2)(a) mandates filing appeals within 120 days, and this specific period impliedly excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The legislature's omission to provide for condonation of delay in appeals to the High Court, unlike provisions for lower appellate authorities, indicates an intention to exclude Section 5. 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: Section 260-A(7) of the Income Tax Act makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) relating to appeals applicable. Under Order 41 Rule 3-A of the CPC, an application for condonation of delay is maintainable. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is generally applicable to appeals, should also apply to appeals under Section 260-A. 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

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 Income

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 →