2003 (12) TMI 17 - HC - Income Tax

Leased out vehicles - We find that before the first appellate authority it was specifically pleaded on behalf of the assessee that there was no difference in the use of trucks by the assessee as owner on hire or in giving the trucks to some other party for using them in their business on hire . - Even before the Tribunal it was never pleaded that the leased out trucks were not used in the business of hire. It is now too late in the day for the Revenue to raise such an issue for the first time in this appeal, which, having regard to the limited jurisdiction of this court under section 260A of the Act, cannot be permitted. - issue raised cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. So, we decline to entertain the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Interpretation of evidence in relation to leased out vehicles; Jurisdiction of the court under section 260A; Finality of judgment.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue raised by the Revenue in an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, noting that it had already been concluded in a previous decision of the court. The court held that no question of law, let alone a substantial one, remained for consideration based on the precedent set by the earlier case of CIT v. Bansal Credits ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69.

Regarding the interpretation of evidence in relation to the leased out vehicles, the court rejected the Revenue's argument that the case supported their position, emphasizing that the assessee had pleaded that there was no difference in the use of trucks whether owned or given out on hire for business purposes. The court highlighted that the first appellate authority did not challenge this plea, and the issue could not be raised for the first time in the appeal under section 260A, given the court's limited jurisdiction.

In discussing the jurisdiction of the court under section 260A, the High Court emphasized that since the Supreme Court had dismissed special leave petitions related to the same issue, including those filed by both the Revenue and the assessee, the matter had attained finality. Therefore, the court concluded that the issue raised did not constitute a substantial question of law, leading to the decision to decline entertaining the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment centered on the application of precedent to resolve the issues raised by the Revenue in the appeal under section 260A, the interpretation of evidence regarding the use of leased vehicles, the court's jurisdiction in light of previous decisions, and the finality of judgments following dismissal of special leave petitions by the Supreme Court.