Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C I T JODHPUR versus M/S MANGILAL RAMESHWAR LAL

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C I T JODHPUR v M/S MANGILAL RAMESHWAR LAL - ITA Case No. 67 of 2004 [2005] RD-RJ 1120 (7 July 2005)

D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 67/2004

Date: 07.07.2005.

HON'BLE MR RAJESH BALIA, J.

HON'BLE MR R.S. CHAUHAN, J.

Mr. Sangeet Lodha for the appellant.

Mr. Anjay Kothari for the respondents.

This appeal against the order of the

Tribunal dated 19.3.2004 was admitted by this

Court on 17.12.2004 and two substantial questions of law were framed, which requires consideration in this appeal. Service was effected on the respondent-assessee. The cross-objection has been preferred by the respondent-assessee under

Section 260(A)(7) read with O.41 R.22 CPC for raising substantial question of law to the extent the Tribunal had decided the question of Block

Assistant being barred by limitation against the assessee, though it has been decided on merits in favour of the assessee.

The cross-objection has been filed after the expiry of limitation on the date of the service of the notice of the appeal, hence it is also accompanied under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for condoning the delay.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the cross-objection within limitation.

Consequently, the application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the cross-objection is treated within limitation.

Considering the cross-objection, we are of the opinion that following substantial question of law also arises from the order of the

Tribunal, which requires consideration in the appeal/cross-objection:

" Whether the ITAT has misconstrued the provisions of Section 158 BE providing for limitation for completion of block assessment and has grossly erred in rejecting the ground of limitation raised by the respondent-assessee before the ITAT."

Admit.

We are informed that the cross- objections are separately registered. Since sub- section (7) of Section 260(A) extend the provisions relating to the appeal contained in the Civil Procedure Code, to this proceedings, the cross-objection filed in Tax Appeals be also separately registered and numbered accordingly.

(R.S. CHAUHAN)J (RAJESH BALIA)J.

Anil/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.