TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows appeal for condonation of delay under Income-tax Act due to retrospective amendment</h1> The court allowed the appeal for condonation of delay under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to a retrospective amendment empowering the High ... Condonation Of Delay of 286 days - Held that:- The High Court was empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the time prescribed in sub-section (2A) of section 260A, if it was satisfied that there was sufficient cause. As earlier decided in case of [CIT v. Williamson Tea (Assam) Ltd 2012 (9) TMI 465 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] delay in filing the appeal can be condoned on reasonable basis beyond the prescribed time - in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 due to an amendment empowering the High Court to entertain such applications retrospectively.Detailed Analysis:1. The interim application was filed for condonation of a 286-day delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Initially, the High Court rejected the appeal citing lack of power to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The applicant sought to recall this order based on a subsequent amendment to section 260A through the Finance Act, 2010, which empowered the High Court to admit appeals beyond the prescribed period if sufficient cause was shown.2. The amendment inserted sub-section (2A) in section 260A, allowing the High Court to consider applications for condonation of delay retrospectively from October 1, 1998. The review petition aimed to restore the appeal for fresh consideration under the amended provision. The applicant argued that the retrospective amendment empowered the court to entertain such applications, while the opposing counsel contended against expanding the review jurisdiction beyond legal grounds.3. The legal debate focused on the interpretation of the retrospective amendment and the scope of review jurisdiction. The parties cited various authorities to support their arguments, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal principles and statutory provisions. The court considered precedents like A. C. Estates v. Serajuddin and Co. and Raja Shatrunji v. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan to assess the applicability of review in light of subsequent events or legal changes.4. The judgment analyzed the implications of retrospective amendments and legal fictions in statutory interpretation. Referring to cases like India Carbon Ltd. v. CIT and Raja Shatrunji, the court highlighted the importance of applying legal fictions consistently and ensuring justice in cases affected by legislative changes. The decision in Raja Shatrunji was particularly relevant in a similar context, where a retrospective amendment affected a prior court ruling.5. Ultimately, the court held that the retrospective amendment to section 260A warranted a review of the earlier order that rejected the appeal on limitation grounds. Citing the legal fiction created by the amendment, the court recalled the order dated June 16, 2010, and restored the appeal for fresh consideration. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, aligning with the legal principles and precedents discussed during the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
