2000 (9) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervice of the order on the appropriate Commissioner was not made at all as required by section 253, sub-section (3), of the said Act. We do not decide the case on this point, and we do not even permit it to be argued, because the Tribunal had no chance even to consider this argument. Section 260A(1) reads as follows: "An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law." We were in some doubt about the order of the Tribunal being at all an order in appeal. Mr. Bajoria, appearing for the assessee, however, punctiliously fair as he always is, showed us from the case of Mela Ram and Sons v. CIT [1956....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... condone the delay of eight days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is perverse ?" In interpreting section 260A(1) in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Deputy CIT [2001] 248 ITR 152 (Cal) (ITA No. 344 of 2000) we have already opined that the words "substantial question of law" mean a question of law which affects the substance of the case, e.g., money liability, and not merely those questions which the court thinks to be somehow specially serious. On this ratio an order refusing to condone delay under section 253(5), (but not one condoning it) is a substantial question of law, because if the point is decided differently, a confirmed order becomes unsettled and still subject to appeal. Section 253(5) of the Income-....