2005 (1) TMI 51 - HC - Income Tax

Question of law power of HC section 260A - Whether Tribunal was justified in observing that since the very basis of assessment order dated December 3, 1987, no longer exists the appeal by the Revenue is of no substance? - Section 260A of the Act is very clear. It only empowers this court to hear the appeal on the question framed by this court at the time of admission of appeal. It cannot be heard and decided on any other question not framed. Admittedly, what is framed in this appeal does not relate to this appeal nor does it arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In substance, it has got no relevance with this appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed involving no question of law within the meaning of section 260A

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Discrepancy between substantial questions of law framed by the court and those proposed by the appellant.
3. Applicability of section 260A(4) for reframing substantial questions of law.
4. Interpretation of section 260A in relation to the questions framed at the time of admission of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The court admitted the appeal for final hearing based on a substantial question of law regarding the justification of the Tribunal's observation on the assessment order. The court clarified the representation of lawyers and rectified errors in the order sheet related to counsels for the parties involved in the case.

2. A discrepancy arose between the substantial question of law framed by the court and the questions proposed by the appellant in their memo of appeal. The court noted that the questions framed did not match or relate to the case at hand. The appellant's proposed questions concerned the applicability of sections 68 and 69 of the Act for a specific assessment year, while the framed question referred to an assessment order from a different year, rendering it irrelevant to the current appeal.

3. Despite the acknowledgment of the discrepancy by the counsels, no application was made to reframe the substantial question of law. The court highlighted that section 260A only empowers the court to hear the appeal based on the question framed at the time of admission. Any other question not framed cannot be considered during the appeal process. The court emphasized that even if the incorrect question was answered, the appeal could not be decided on its merits due to its lack of relevance to the case.

4. The court concluded that the appeal failed as it did not involve any question of law within the meaning of section 260A. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the questions framed at the time of admission and clarified that the appeal could not be disposed of based on a question that was foreign to the factual and legal issues decided by the Tribunal. The court dismissed the appeal without costs based on the aforementioned discussion.