CIT, AMRITSAR vs. HARBINDER SINGH

ITA/599/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084723200915 January 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable. The court referred to its own judgment dated January 12, 2010, in ITA No. 654 of 2009, which followed the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 791. In that judgment, the Supreme Court had held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, cannot be invoked for condoning the delay in filing appeals under the Customs Act, 1962, which is a special statute. The High Court found that the Revenue's counsel could not provide any satisfactory explanation as to how Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked in the present case, which also involves an appeal under a special statute (Income Tax Act). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax II, Amritsar, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated December 30, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 1998-99. The Revenue also filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. During the hearing, the High Court confronted the Revenue's counsel with a previous judgment of the same court dated January 12, 2010, in ITA No. 654 of 2009. The counsel was unable to satisfy the court on how Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be invoked by the Revenue for condoning the delay in filing an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 791? Assessee's arguments: Not recorded. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was applicable for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. However, the counsel was unable to justify this contention in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., which was followed by the High Court in a previous decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Date of decision: January 15,2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax II, Amritsar .. Appellant Versus Dr. Harbinder Singh, L/H of late S.Santokh Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jitendra Chauhan Present: Mr. Sukant Gupta Advocate for Ms. Naveender P.K.Singh, Advocate for the appellant-Revenue.

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR,J. This is an appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for brevity,”the Act”) against the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench Amritsar (for brevity,”the Tribunal') in ITA No. 594/ASR/2008 in respect of Assessment Year 1998-99 dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. With the instant appeal, the revenue has also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ( for brevity,”1963 Act') for condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal. At the hearing, we have confronted the learned counsel for the appellant with the judgment dated

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 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →