| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 2014 2005 SLD 2014 (2005) 272 ITR 321 |
Calcutta High Court
G.A. No. 502 OF 2004 AND IT APPEAL No. 65 OF 2004 JUNE 10, 2004
D.K. SETH AND R.N. SINHA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
G.A. No. 502 OF 2004 AND IT APPEAL No. 65 OF 2004 JUNE 10, 2004
D.K. SETH AND R.N. SINHA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
J.L. Marrison (India) Ltd.
Law:
Section:
Section 260A, read with section 269, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court - Appeal to - Whether in course of deciding question of condonation of delay High Court is empowered to look into maintainability of appeal before High Court even before it embarks upon deciding question of condonation of delay - Held, yes - Whether High Court of a particular State cannot assume jurisdiction in respect of matters reaching finality before Tribunal in another State subject to jurisdiction of High Court of that State - Held, yes FACTS In an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the High Court a preliminary objection was raised contending that the assessment for the concerned previous year reached its finality in another State over which the Tribunal and the High Court of that State had jurisdiction and hence the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court could not be stretched to the Tribunal in another State when the matter reached finality in the other State. HELD In the course of deciding the question of condonation of delay the High Court is empowered to look into the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court even before it embarks upon deciding the question of condonation of delay. The instant application for condonation of delay had been filed in connection with an appeal under section 260A before the Calcutta High Court against an order passed by the Tribunal at Mumbai. Therefore, when the Tribunal at Mumbai disposed of the appeal, the appeal under section 260A in Chapter XX would lie to the High Court as defined in section 269 at Bombay being the High Court of that State, the Tribunal within the jurisdiction of which or of that State passed the order. Therefore, an order passed by the Tribunal of a particular State would lie to the High Court of that State and in relation to the Union Territories to the High Court defined in section 269. By reason thereof, the appeal under section 260A in the instant case would lie to the High Court at Bombay. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, which was an admitted position, that the assessment had reached finality before the Tribunal in another State, namely, Bombay, theβ¦
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