Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. Lodha, Jasti Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
Commissioner of Income Tax-II - Appellant
Vs.
Mastek Ltd. - Respondent
C.C. No. 3075 of 2013 (Arising out of judgment of Gujarat High Court in ITA No. 472 of 2012, dated 1-8-2012)
Decided On: 04.03.2013
Section 260A - Income-tax Act, 1961 - The court clarified that the High Court has the power to frame substantial questions of law at the time of hearing the appeal, other than the questions on which the appeal has been admitted, subject to certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and raised substantial questions of law for consideration. The Revenue contended that other questions raised in the memo of appeal before the High Court have been rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The court clarified that the High Court has the power to frame substantial questions of law at the time of hearing the appeal, other than the questions on which the appeal has been admitted, subject to certain conditions. The court also mentioned that the delay of 72 days was condoned, but the special leave petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court had the power to frame substantial questions of law at the time of hearing the appeal, other than the questions on which the appeal has been admitted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the High Court's power to frame substantial questions of law at the time of hearing the appeal remains under Section 260A(4) of the Income-tax Act, subject to the conditions that the court must be satisfied that the appeal involves such questions and must record reasons for doing so.
Final Decision: The delay of 72 days was condoned, but the special leave petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner. We find that appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act') has been admitted by the High Court and two substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration of the appeal.
2. The grievance of the Revenue is that by necessary implication, the other questions raised in the memo of appeal before the High Court have been rejected.
3. We are afraid that the Revenue is under some misconception. The proviso following the main provision of Section 260A(4) of the Act states that nothing stated in Sub-section (4), i.e., 'The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated' shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question,
4. The High Court's power to frame substantial question(s) of law at the time of hearing of the appeal other than the questions on which appeal has been admitted remains under Section 260A(4). This power is subject, however, to two conditions, (one) the Court must be satisfied that appeal involves such questions, and (two) the Court has to record reasons therefor.
5. In view of the above legal position, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this special leave petition, although we are inclined to condone delay of 72 days.
6. Delay condoned. Special leave petition is dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
