TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eral appeals filed by the assessees and the Revenue purported to be under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), were disposed of. Detailed reference to the factual aspects would be unnecessary as we propose to dispose of the appeals taking note of submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the manner of disposal as done by the High Court is not in line with the prescriptions of section 260A of the Act. Suffice it would to only note that the assessees were at some point of time, partners of a partnership firm styled Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works. The said firm which consisted of thirteen partners stood dissolved in terms of the deed of partnership with effect from December 6, 1987, by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the view that the amount received by way of consideration after statutory adjustments amounted to receipt from a slump sale and was, therefore, taxable under the heading "Capital gain". The conclusions of the Revenue authorities were challenged by the assessees before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (in short "the ITAT"). Aggrieved by various conclusions, the assessees as well as the Revenue preferred appeals before the Karnataka High Court which were disposed of by the impugned common judgment. Learned counsel for the assessees-appellants submitted that the arguments raised by them relating to non-applicability of the principle of slump sale were not considered by the High Court. There was even no reference to the ple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herein the substantial question of law involved. (3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (4) The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated, and the respondents shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. (5) The High Court shall decide the question of law so formulated and deliver such judgment the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....100(5) of the CPC. Various essentials as culled out from the relevant provisions of the Act are as follows: Under section 260A(2)(c) the appeal under section 260A shall be (a) in the form of a memorandum of appeal and (b) precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. Under section 260A(3) when the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case it shall formulate that question and under section 260A(4) the appeal is to be heard only on the question formulated under the preceding sub-section. It has to be noted that in terms of section 260A(4) the respondent in the appeal is allowed to argue at the time of hearing of the appeal that the case does not involve a substantial questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of fact of the Tribunal cannot be disturbed. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. The conditions mentioned in section 260A must be strictly fulfilled before an appeal can be maintained under section 260A. Such appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds. An appeal under section 260A can be only in respect of a "substantial question of law". The expression "substantial question of law" has not been defined any where in the statute. But it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. In Sir Chunilal V. ....