Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pix Transmission Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0713-24]
| Citation | 2017-LL-0713-24 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Respondent Name | Pix Transmission Ltd. |
| Court | SUPREME COURT |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 13/07/2017 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | appellate jurisdiction • question of law • accountant |
| Bot Summary: | 9674/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. PIX TRANSMISSION LTD. RESPONDENT(S) ORDER In the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961, the following substantial question of law was raised: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the claim of the assessee under Section 88-HHC of the Income Tax Act is justified even if he had not furnished the report of an accountant along with the return of income. The High Court has dismissed the appeal with a simple observation that no substantial question of law is involved. After hearing Mr. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Revenue, we are of the opinion that the question formulated above is a substantial question of law which arises for determination and the High Court should not Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in limine. ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2017.07.19 10:04:55 IST Reason: Having regard to the fact that it is an old matter, we could have decided the aforesaid question of law ourselves. We, thus, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remand the case back to the High Court to decide the aforesaid question of law after hearing both the parties. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. |