PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL

ITA/90/2020

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Jaipur, against M/s Hari Narain Parwal, Huf, and Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Huf, respectively. The appeals were directed against the order dated 20.03.2020, which rejected the application for rectification. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals, citing previous decisions that supported their stance. The appellants argued that the appeals were maintainable as the rectification order was wrongly dismissed due to low tax effect. The court, referencing Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concluded that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not challenge the substantive orders passed by the Tribunal but were instead directed against the rectification order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 730146 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Mangalam Cement Limited Versus Union of India, CIT Vs. Saroop Tanneries Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDHARTH BAPNA
• Keywords: Income tax appeal; Maintainability; Rectification Order; Substantial question of law
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

"[2024:RJ-JP:9156-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 90/2020 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus M/s Hari Narain Parwal, Huf, 376, Nahargarh Road, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 94/2020 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Huf, 376, Nahargarh Road, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sidharth Bapna For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma (through VC) for Mr. Prakul Khurana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 21/02/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN,J (Oral):- 1. These appeals are filed proposing substantial questions of law arising from the order dated 20.03.2020 whereby the application for rectification was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that appeal is not maintainable. Reliance is placed upon [2024:RJ-JP:9156-DB] (2 of 3) [ITA-90/2020] decisions of M/s Mangalam Cement Limited Versus Union of India reported in (2015) SCC Online Raj 3492 and CIT Vs. Saroop Tanneries Ltd. reported in (2015) 60 taxmann.com 305. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appeal was wrongly dismissed for having low tax effect, hence the appeal is maintainable. 4. Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is reproduced below:- “260A. (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or an assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be— (a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the assessee or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; (b) [***] (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. (2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within that period. (3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (4) The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated, and the respondents shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the [2024:RJ-JP:9156-DB] (3 of 3) [ITA-90/2020] 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. (5) The High Court shall decide the question of law so formulated and deliver such judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded and may award such cost as it deems fit. (6) The High Court may determine any issue which — (a) has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal; or (b) has been wrongly determined by the Appellate Tribunal, by reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in sub-section (1). (7) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), relating to appeals to the High Court shall, as far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under this section.” 5. Under Section 260-A of the Act, on substantial questions of law appeal from every order passed in appeal by Tribunal shall lie to the High Court. In the present case, the appeal filed is against the dismissal of the rectification order and not against the order passed in appeals consequently, the appeal is not maintainable. Similar view has been taken in the decisions cited above. 6. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Needless to say that appellants shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/Himanshu—87 and 91 Whether Reportable : Yes "