2013 (3) TMI 152 - HC - Income Tax

Interpretation of Section 80 HHC - Held that - Perusal of the order of ITAT clearly show that the appellant was given liberty to approach the Tribunal by moving an application for recall of the said order. However, instead of filing the application for which permission was granted by the Tribunal, present appeal is filed. No questions of law arise out of impugned order. Thus it would be more appropriate for the appellant to move the Tribunal and make an application for recall of the order in question for which the period of limitation has not yet expired.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order of Income Tax Tribunal, Interpretation of Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, Application for early hearing dismissed, Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, Liberty granted to approach Tribunal for recall of order, Appeal filed without moving application for recall, Questions of law not decided by Tribunal.

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Tribunal, challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, allowing the appellant to move an application for recall of the order. Instead of following this procedure, the appellant directly filed the present appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that the issue regarding the interpretation of Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. However, the Revenue's counsel contended that the questions of law had not been decided by the Tribunal on merits. The Court noted that the appellant should first approach the Tribunal and file an application for recall of the order within the permissible time limit. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the appellant liberty to move the Tribunal for the recall of the order in question.

In this case, the primary issue involved was the proper procedure to be followed when an appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution by the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the appellant should have availed the liberty granted by the Tribunal to file an application for recall of the order instead of directly filing the appeal. This highlights the importance of following the correct legal procedures and exhausting available remedies before approaching the Court.

Another significant issue addressed in the judgment was the interpretation of Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act. The appellant's counsel argued that this issue was already settled by a previous judgment of the Court. However, the Revenue's counsel pointed out that the Tribunal had not decided the questions of law on merits. This underscores the importance of having legal issues adjudicated upon by the appropriate authority before seeking redress from higher courts.

Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance and exhausting available remedies before approaching higher courts for relief. It also highlights the necessity of having legal issues decided on their merits by the relevant authorities before seeking judicial intervention.