9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent. JUDGMENT 1. This notice of motion is taken out by the Revenue seeking condonation of delay of 575 days in filing the above appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("I T. Act" for short). 2. Mr. Saluja, learned Counsel for the Revenue, relying upon a Pull Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Velingkar Brothers reported in [2007] 289 ITR 382 submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectively. Since section 35G of the Excise Act is in pari materia with section 260A of the Income-tax Act, Mr. Mistry submits that this court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. 4. Counsel for the Revenue, however, Contends that section 35H of the Excise Act is not in pari materia with section 260A of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Excise Act ought not to be applied while interpreting the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Mr. Saluja further submitted that in view of applicability of section 5 to the courts by its own operation, the High Court has a power to condone delay and it this power is to be taken away, then there should be a specific exclusion under section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since there is no sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different cannot be said to be wholly without substance. However, once the apex court has held that the High Court has no power to condone delay in filing appeal under section 35G of the Excise Act, we have no option but to hold that this court has no power to condone delay under section 260A of the Income-tax Act because section 260A of the Income-tax Act is in pari materia with section 35G of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
