TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after referred to as "the Act") and set aside the order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), Chandigarh Bench in W.T.A. No.11,12 & 13/Chandi/95 & C.O. No.37/Chandi/95 in W.T.A. No.11/Chandi/95 and order dated 13.06.2001 in W.T.A. Nos.213, 191 and 192/Chandi/94 and restored the order of assessment passed by the Assessing officer for levying penalty for the entire period of delay in respect of Assessment Years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. 2) Few facts need mention for disposal of the appeals. 3) The appellant is the wealth tax assessee and is subjected to payment of Wealth Tax under the Act. The case pertains to the Assessment Years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. The i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the National Tax Tribunal appeal before the High Court. (1A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days referred to in sub-section (1), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within that period. (2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court before the date of establishment the National Tax Tribunal from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, under sub-section (1) of section 24 only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (3) In an appeal under this section, the Memorandum of Appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Code is identical. Both the Sections are, therefore, in pari materia. It is a case where Section 100 of the Code is bodily lifted from the Code and incorporated in Section 27-A of the Act with minor additions and alterations by following the principle of "legislation by incorporation". 8) A three Judge Bench of this Court in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179 had examined the scope of Section 100 of the Code of the Civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). Justice R.C. Lahoti (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench laid down the following proposition of law in Para 9: "9. The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in pari materia ; Thirdly, Section 27-A is enacted by following the principle of "legislation by incorporation"; fourthly, Section 100 is bodily lifted from the Code and incorporated as Section 27-A in the Act; and lastly, since both Sections are akin to each other in all respects, the appeal filed under Section 27-A of the Act has to be decided like a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code. 11) Now coming to the facts of the case, we find that the High Court proceeded to decide the appeals without formulating the substantial question(s) of law. Indeed, the High Court did not make any effort to find out as to whether the appeals involved any substantial question(s) of law and, if so, which is/are that question(s) and nor it formula....