Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2713 2002 SLD 2713 (2002) 257 ITR 168
Calcutta High Court

DILIP KUMAR SETH, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Rakesh Kumar Shaw

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 253 read with sections 246 and 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with article 226 of the Constitution of India - Appellate Tribunal - Appealable orders - Whether order passed under section 271D is appealable under section 246(2)(ee) - Held - yes - Whether where appellate authority had found that explanation for not preferring appeal within prescribed period was not satisfactory and as such, it did not admit appeal and at same time, dismissed appeal, order of dismissal refusing to admit an appeal was also an order under section 250, which was appealable under section 253 - Held, yes - Whether existence of alternative remedy does not operate as a bar of jurisdiction and where High Court had jurisdiction, it could grant stay of demand for a period in order to allow petitioner to have time to prefer appeal before appropriate authority - Held, yes FACTS A penalty was imposed upon the assessee under section 271D on account of violation of acceptance of loan in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000 prohibited under section 269SS. The assessee preferred an appeal under section 246 and also made an application under section 249(3), for admission of the appeal, which was preferred beyond the limitation provided in section 249(2). The Commissioner dismissed the same. On writ : HELD Whether the assessee was able to justify the reasonableness of the cause of failure to comply with section 269SS, in view of the provisions contained in section 273B, were not questions which could be gone into in the instant case, when the order rejecting the appeal was on the ground of filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. In the said order, the merits of the case had not been gone into. As such, the High Court could not undertake the exercise to that extent. Admittedly, the order was passed under section 271D. Such an order is appealable under section 246(2)(ee ). Accordingly, the appeal was filed. Such appeal, in view of section 249(2), is to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty as provided under section 249(2)(b ). Section 249(3) empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to admit the appeal after the expiry…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492