ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court granted the appellant's (revenue's) prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Court acknowledged that the appellant had approached the Court within the statutory time limit and found it appropriate to grant liberty to file fresh proceedings with corrections and modifications within six weeks from the date of the order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The registry was directed to return the certified copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the service certificate to the learned standing counsel for the revenue.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bilaspur (the appellant/revenue) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur. The respondent is M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited. The appeal was preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asserting that substantial questions of law were involved. During the hearing, the revenue's counsel submitted that due to an oversight, the substantial questions of law were not framed precisely and requested permission to withdraw the current appeal to file a fresh one with corrected pleadings and prayers.
What were the issues?
1. Whether substantial questions of law, as envisaged under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are involved in the appeal, requiring adjudication by the High Court. Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not present any arguments as the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue. The revenue's counsel argued that due to an oversight, the substantial questions of law were imprecisely framed and sought permission to withdraw the appeal to file a fresh one with appropriate pleadings and prayers, including the substantial question of law. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that substantial questions of law were involved, necessitating adjudication by the High Court. However, they acknowledged an inadvertent mistake in framing these questions and sought to withdraw the appeal to rectify it.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 of 2 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 93 of 2019 • Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ----Appellant VERSUS • M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Bilaspur C.G. ----Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate, Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice. 10/01/2020
This appeal has been preferred by the Department of Revenue (Tax) challenging the verdict passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur stating that much substantial questions of law as envisaged under Section 260 A of Income Tax Act, 1961 are involved herein and hence, it require to be adjudicated by this Court.
When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned standing counsel submits that because of some oversight, some inadvertant mistake has crept in framing the substantial questions of law, which require to be suggested in a better and precise manner, so as to have effective adjudication by this Court. In the said circumstance, permission of this Court is sought to withdraw this appeal without prejudice to file fresh one raising the pleadings and prayers, including the substantial question of law involved in appropriate terms.
The aforesaid prayer is granted. Considering the fact that the appellant has approached this Court and filed the appeal within the time permitted under the statute, we find it appropriate to grant liberty to the appellant to file fresh
2 of 2 proceedings as corrected and modified to the requisite extent within a further period of six weeks from today.
Subject to the above, this appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. Registry is directed to return the certified copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the service certificate to the learned standing counsel for proceeding with further steps. (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Pawan
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
