2004 (10) TMI 81 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appellant s application for leave to add additional grounds in the appeal preferred by them - The order of the Tribunal declining to grant leave to urge the grounds not set forth in the appeal does not determine the rights of the parties. The invocation of rule 11 is procedural in nature and so also such order. - We are, therefore, of the view that the present appeal preferred by the appellant under section 260A is not maintainable against the impugned order declining the appellant to raise additional grounds in the memorandum of appeal. - The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the application for additional grounds in the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment delivered by the High Court of BOMBAY addressed the issue of the maintainability of an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the appellant's application to add additional grounds in the appeal. The appellant argued that the impugned order significantly impacted their rights and fell under the scope of "every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal" as per section 260A. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment to support this argument.

Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was examined, which outlines the provisions for appeals to the High Court. The court noted that the expression "every order passed in appeal" does not encompass all interlocutory orders, especially those of a procedural nature, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal during the appeal process. It was emphasized that for an order to be covered under this expression, it must affect the merits of the action by determining a right or liability. The court clarified that the order refusing to allow additional grounds was procedural and did not impact the rights of the party, as such orders could be challenged in the appeal against the final order.

The court further analyzed Rule 11 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which restricts the appellant from raising new grounds without the Tribunal's permission. It was highlighted that the Tribunal's decision to deny leave for additional grounds did not decide the parties' rights and was procedural. Consequently, the court concluded that the appeal under section 260A was not maintainable against the order rejecting the appellant's request to raise additional grounds.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling it as not maintainable due to the procedural nature of the order declining the appellant's application for additional grounds in the memorandum of appeal. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and principles governing the scope of appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasizing the distinction between substantive rights and procedural orders in the appellate process.