| 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.
Recent Comments