Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › ACIT vs. Mahavir Prasad (Chhattisgarh High Court)

ACIT vs. Mahavir Prasad (Chhattisgarh High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 2, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (mahavir_prasad_260A_condonation_delay.pdf)

U/s 260A, High Court has no power to condone delay

S. 260A permits the filing of an appeal to the High Court within 120 days. In Hongo India 236 E.L.T. 417 and Chaudharana Steels 238 E.L.T. 705, the Supreme Court held in the context of sections 35H & 35G of the Excise Act, that in the absence of specific powers, the High Court has no power to condone delay. On the question whether the said judgement of the Supreme Court would apply to s. 260A as well, HELD:

The Income-tax Act is a special law. The nature of the remedy provided therein are such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. The scheme of the Income-tax Act supports the conclusion that the time limit prescribed u/s 260A to file an appeal before the High Court is absolute and unextendable by court u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and the limitation cannot be extended by invoking the provisions of s. 5 of the Limitation Act. Since the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed period of 120 days they had to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

See Also: CIT vs. Grasim Industries (Bombay High Court). Note: The Finance Bill, 2009 has proposed to amend ss. 35G & 35H of the Excise Act to supersede the said judgements of the Supreme Court. However, no amendment has been proposed to s. 260A so far.

Related Judgements

  1. Hasan Ali Khan vs. ITSC (Bombay High Court) 

    (i) The Chairman of the Settlement Commission has the power to constitute a Special Bench and he is not required to give reasons or produce the material in support thereof. (ii) It is not as if the moment an application … Hasan Ali Khan vs. ITSC (Bombay High…
  2. Sales Tax Practitioners vs. State (Bombay High Court) 

    S. 61 of the MVAT which confers right to do audit to CAs and excludes Advocates and STPs is neither discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable and consequently not unconstitutional. Only CAs are competent to perform audit functions having regard to the expertise achieved as a result of their academic knowledge…
  3. Emptee Poly-Yarn (Bombay High Court) 

    Meaning of the terms “manufacture”, “production” and “process”. The process applied to POY either for the purpose of texturising or twisting constitutes manufacture as the article produced is recognised in the trade as distinct commodity pursuant to the process it undergoes and which amounts to manufacture. Read more ›
  4. FGP Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Though the assessee was following the mercantile system and was entitled to royalty under an agreement, the royalty was not assessable in accordance with the principles of real income, in view of the dispute pending in arbitration.
    Read more ›
  5. CCE vs. Shree Rubber Plast (Bombay High Court Full Bench) 

    In Shruti Colorants a Division Bench held that where there was a delay in filing Appeals u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act (= s. 260A of the IT ACT), the Court had no power to condone the delay by taking recourse to s. 5 of the Limitation Act.
     
    This…