2009 (7) TMI 1310 - HC - Income Tax

Bombay HC dismisses appeals due to delay; lacks power to condone under Income Tax Act.

The Bombay HC dismissed two appeals for a 14-day delay without notice of motion or prayer for condonation. Citing a SC decision, the court held it lacked ... High Court has no power to condone delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income tax Act, 1961 - condonation of delay - limitation bar to appealHigh Court has no power to condone delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income tax Act, 1961 - condonation of delay - limitation bar to appeal - Appeals filed after the limitation period without a notice of motion or prayer for condonation are barred and must be dismissed where the Court lacks power to condone delay under section 260A. - HELD THAT: - Both appeals were filed 14 days late and no notice of motion was taken out, nor was there any prayer for condonation or sufficient cause shown. Having regard to the Apex Court's decision in Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and this Court's earlier decision in CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd., the Court concluded it has no jurisdiction under section 260A of the Income tax Act, 1961 to condone delay in filing an appeal. Consequently, absent any statutory power to extend time and in the presence of unexplained delay, the appeals are barred by limitation. [Paras 1, 2]Both appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation, with no order as to costs.Final Conclusion: The High Court, applying the Apex Court's precedent and its earlier ruling, dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation because it lacks power to condone delay under section 260A; no costs ordered. The Bombay High Court dismissed two appeals for being delayed by 14 days without notice of motion or prayer for condonation of delay. The court cited a Supreme Court decision and ruled that it has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No costs were awarded.