9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason to recall that order – The application stands rejected.Thus, the respondent is not required to be heard before the admission of the appeal. - - - - - Dated:- 10-7-2003 - Judge(s) : B. C. PATEL., A. K. SIKRI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by B. C. PATEL C. J.-While admitting Income-tax Appeal No. 163 of 2001, a Division Bench on December 10, 2001, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, framed the substantial question of law. This application is filed for recalling the order made by the Division Bench at the stage of admission formulating the question of law. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is usual practice in this court that before framing the questions of law, the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In matters of admission in the High Court, the matters are first placed for admission so as to find out whether there is any substance in the matter or not and the matter requires any further investigation or not. That is between the appellant and the court. It is for the appellant to satisfy the court that there is some substance in the appeal and, therefore, the appeal is required to be admitted. In the case of second appeal or in the case of appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a substantial question of law is required to be framed by the court. It is known that at the time of passing ad interim relief, the respondent is not required to be heard. If he appears on caveat then he ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt is satisfied may dismiss it on that ground. The very fact that the respondent is given the right to argue that the case does not involve such question even at the time of hearing of the appeal is also a clear indicator that the substantial question of law can be formulated under sub-section (3) of section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without hearing the respondent. Thus, there are sufficient safeguards in so far as the respondent is concerned as the respondent has a right to make his submission at the time of hearing of the appeal that the question formulated was substantial or not. It may be a practice to hear the respondent before admitting the appeal or formulating question of law. However, it cannot be said that if the appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
