Case Law Details
CIT Vs M/s Rashtradoot (HUF) (Supreme Court)
Conclusion: High Court in the absence of any discussion or/and the reasoning/ground as to why the order of ITAT did not suffer from any illegality and why the grounds of Revenue were not acceptable and why the appeal did not involve any substantial question(s) of law or though framed could not be answered in Revenue’s favour, the impugned order dismissing the Revenue’s appeal suffered from jurisdictional errors and, therefore, legally unsustainable for want of compliance of the requirements of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 260A.
Held: Tribunal (ITAT) decided the various issues arising in the case in favour of assessee which gave rise to filing of the appeal by Revenue before the High Court under Section 260A. High Court by impugned judgment dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, which gave rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by the Revenue in this Court. It was held in the absence of any discussion or/and the reasoning/ground as to why the order of ITAT did not suffer from any illegality and why the grounds of Revenue were not acceptable and why the appeal did not involve any substantial question(s) of law or though framed could not be answered in Revenue’s favour, the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional errors and, therefore, legally unsustainable for want of compliance of the requirements of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 260A. Hence, impugned order was set aside and matter was remanded to the High Court with a request to decide the appeal filed by the Revenue afresh on merits in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
