TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court from every order passed u/s 254, but has confined it to the order passed in an appeal by the Appellate Tribunal - the words “an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal” has to be given purposeful meaning - The words “passed in appeal” means an order finally deciding an appeal – thus, the present appeal against an interim order of the Tribunal is not maintainable u/s 260-A of the Act - it would be open to the assessee to question the interim order of the Tribunal in an appeal after final orders are passed by the Tribunal – Decided against assessee. - Income Tax Appeal 795 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2014 - Tarun Agarwala And Dr. Satish Chandra, JJ. (Per: Tarun Agarwala,J.) The appellant is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hought/fabricated and further erred in holding that no reason is given for filing additional evidences, without even examining such evidences/finding any defect anomaly in the same and in total disregard of the fact that reason is to file additional evidences is duly given while such evidence was necessary for the proper disposal of appeal, which is not only against the provisions of law but also against the provisions of natural justice. The Tribunal by the impugned order, dated Nil, rejected the request of the appellant to lead additional evidence. The appellant, being arrived by the order of the Tribunal, has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Act. We have heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, the learned senior counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. The Bombay High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. Similar view was held by the Rajasthan High Court in Madhav Marbles and Granites vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, (2014)362 ITR 647, where the Court held that no appeal would lie to the High Court against an order passed on an application for rectification under Section 264 (2) of the Act. In Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, (1999) 240 ITR 579, the Calcutta High Court held, that an appeal would not be permissible under Section 260-A from any and every order passed by the Tribunal. In the light of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear, that the words an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
