Case Law Details
PR. CIT Vs A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)
There lies a distinction between the questions proposed by the appellant for admission of the appeal and the questions framed by the Court.
The questions, which are proposed by the appellant, fall under Section 260A (2) (c) of the Act whereas the questions framed by the High Court fall under Section 260A (3) of the Act. The appeal is heard on merits only on the questions framed by the High Court under sub section (3) of Section 260A of the Act as provided under Section 260A (4) of the Act. In other words, the appeal is heard only on the questions framed by the Court.
If the High Court was of the view that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law, it should have recorded a categorical finding to that effect saying that the questions proposed by the appellant either do not arise in the case or/and are not substantial questions of law so as to attract the rigor of Section 260A of the Act for its admission and accordingly should have dismissed the appeal in limine.
It was, however, not done and instead the High Court without admitting the appeal and framing any question of law issued notice of appeal to the respondenta ssessee, heard both the parties on the questions urged by the appellant and dismissed it. In our view, the respondent had a right to argue “at the time of hearing” of the appeal that the questions framed were not involved in the appeal and this the respondent could urge by taking recourse to subsection (5) of Section 260A of the Act. But this stage in this case did not arise because as mentioned above, the High Court neither admitted the appeal nor framed any question as required under subsection (3) of Section 260A of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
