COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. BHAGWAN DAS PATEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/46/2003HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01003153200312 September 2006Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was to be treated as dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 13/09/2006. The Court had granted four weeks' time to remove the defaults, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed for non-prosecution. As the defaults were not removed within the specified period, the appeal was dismissed. The reasoning is based on the procedural non-compliance by the appellant. The ratio decidendi is that failure to comply with a peremptory order of the Court leads to dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. No specific relief was granted as the appeal was dismissed on a procedural ground. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, against Bhagwan Das Patel, Proprietor of Meghani Timber Mart, Bhanpuri, Raipur. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, was hearing the appeal. The judgment records that the appeal was filed in 2002. On September 13, 2006, the Court granted four weeks' time to remove defaults, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, on November 7, 2006, the Court noted that the appeal was treated as dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated September 13, 2006.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, as per the order dated 13/09/2006. The assessee (Respondent) did not appear to argue the case, and the judgment does not record any contentions from their side. The Revenue (Appellant) was represented by Shri Amit Chaudhari, learned counsel. The primary issue before the Tribunal was the compliance with the Court's peremptory order for removal of defaults. The Revenue's argument, implicitly, would be that if the defaults were not removed within the stipulated time, the appeal should be dismissed as per the Court's prior order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) I.T.Adb OP 2002 PELLANT ^. ^^" I**\.\^'. •'" • ^^w^.- •• ^^s^" 9-'^ ^:'.. &.'- RESPONDENT &-•••• Cornmissioner, hicome Tax, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS Bhagwan Das Patel, Prpp. Meghani Timber Mart, Bhanpuri, .Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OS.'INCOME_TAX ACT, 1961

XI-HC-22 sn^r^r f?:ri??3n^T St)*1 Hf5(T sm^ SST^TFTR^T, tfTfl+1'16, RlctKiy *11*1MI aitTI<*> 311^1 ^ach _l^.ft:.^ ^ 200^ [d'b.A an^r ?RIW dfta' DMSIONBENCH HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, Cj) HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGMlHOTRI. J. 13-09-2006 : Shri Amit Chaudhari, learnt Finally, four weeks' time i| which the appeal shall stand dis] further order from the Court. Sd/- Chief Justice »bi<il<'i41-iw^rf ff fs<S <Fai^i< ^sTRrtrsn^r ed counsel for the appeltant. granted to remove the defaults, failing missed for non-prosecution, without any Sd/- ~' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge •ga

XI-HC-78 +11*1011 ai*iiq» 3^ •<)l<<lcl'i<, ®Tfly'l(S,fcjdiyy ****** «"¥**•'*•'*«••»*»'• 2003 3n^?r(Rra7 (({gfg^ET) an^T^Tf^TR? (rarsn^TstiHitti rtlfi. BTBTWflfScTSn^T ^rafeN^r iTOcff fr'h^\ <K\W{ ^i3l1^T3n^T 07-11-2U06: This I.TA. No. 46/2003 is treated as dismissed tbr non- compliance of peremptory order dated 13/09/2006. (For details note sheet part may kindly be seen.) Couiisel be infoiTned accordingly. Sd/- AR(J) M

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →