2015 (4) TMI 626 - HC - Income Tax

Regulation of Proceedings - notice of appeal not served - Held that - The omission to serve notice of appeal as required by rules coupled with failure on the part of the appellant to serve notice of appeal inspite opportunity granted after time prescribed by rules to serve had expired leaves no other option to the Court except to dismiss the appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Failure to serve notice of appeal as required by the rules and subsequent failure to serve notice despite repeated opportunities granted by the Court.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta dealt with the issue of failure to serve notice of appeal as mandated by the rules. The Court highlighted the importance of serving notice of appeal within the specified time frame, as per Chapter XXXI Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules of the Court. The failure to serve notice of appeal was considered a clear violation of the rules, making the appeal liable for disposal. Despite multiple opportunities granted to the appellant to rectify the service of notice, including granting extensions and adjournments, the appellant failed to comply. The Court emphasized the significance of adherence to procedural rules and timelines in legal proceedings, especially in matters concerning appeals.

The judgment also delved into the relevant statutory provisions governing appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsection (7) of Section 260A stipulates that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to appeals to the High Court shall apply in appeals under this section. The Court specifically referenced Order 41 Rule 14, which outlines the service of notice of appeal akin to serving a summons on a defendant. The judgment highlighted the procedural requirements for serving notices and the consequences of non-compliance, drawing parallels with the rules governing the dismissal of suits for failure to serve summons.

Furthermore, the Court invoked the powers vested in High Courts under Sections 129 and 130 of the Code of Civil Procedure to make their own rules. The judgment referenced Clause 37 of the Letters Patent, which empowers the High Court to make rules for regulating civil proceedings. The Court underscored the applicability of rules made by the Court, emphasizing that the failure to serve notice of appeal as per the prescribed rules, combined with the appellant's continued non-compliance even after extended opportunities, left the Court with no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. The judgment concluded by dismissing the appeal due to the persistent failure to serve the notice of appeal, reiterating the importance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings before the Court.