Mathur Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Commnr. of Income-tax Delhi & Anr
[Citation -2017-LL-0912-21]

Citation 2017-LL-0912-21
Appellant Name Mathur Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name Commnr. of Income-tax Delhi & Anr.
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 12/09/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags appellate jurisdiction • review application • memo of appeal
Bot Summary: Vide order dated 10.08.2017, this Court had permitted the appellant to examine as to whether the oral arguments were advanced on substantial question No.3 raised in the Memo of Appeal filed before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant in which it has been stated that the issue of powers of Commissioner had come in appeal under Rule 46A and were specifically raised before the High Court. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, if indeed such issue was raised specifically before the High Court and it has not been taken into consideration by the High Court by passing the impugned order dated 17.01.2006, the appropriate remedy for the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2017.09.16 appellant would be to file an application for review of 12:39:34 IST Reason: the said order. Accordingly, we permit the appellant to file a 2 review application before the High Court within two weeks from today. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law without raising the question of limitation. All the questions raised in this appeal are left open to be raised again, if occasion so arises. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.


IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3067/2007 M/S.MATHUR MARKETING PVT.LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX DELHI & ANR. Respondent(s) ORDER We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned order. Vide order dated 10.08.2017, this Court had permitted appellant to examine as to whether oral arguments were advanced on substantial question No.3 raised in Memo of Appeal filed before High Court under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961. affidavit has been filed on behalf of appellant in which it has been stated that issue of powers of Commissioner (Appeals) had come in appeal under Rule 46A and were specifically raised before High Court. In that view of matter, in our considered opinion, if indeed such issue was raised specifically before High Court and it has not been taken into consideration by High Court by passing impugned order dated 17.01.2006, appropriate remedy for Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2017.09.16 appellant would be to file application for review of 12:39:34 IST Reason: said order. Accordingly, we permit appellant to file 2 review application before High Court within two weeks from today. If such application is filed, same shall be considered in accordance with law without raising question of limitation. All questions raised in this appeal are left open to be raised again, if occasion so arises. Civil Appeal is disposed of with aforesaid observations. .....................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL] .....................J. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD] NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 3 ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No.3067/2007 M/S.MATHUR MARKETING PVT.LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX DELHI & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 12-09-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Appellant(s) Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv. Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Kapila, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anushree Menon, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Om Prakash Shukla, Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR UPON hearing counsel Court made following O R D E R Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of signed order. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on file) Mathur Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Commnr. of Income-tax Delhi & Anr
Report Error