Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + SC Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 903 - SC - Income TaxEligibility to deduction u/s 35D to the respondent Bank as an industrial undertaking - High Court justification in dismissing the appellant's appeal - non forming substantial question of law - HELD THAT:- The need to remand the case to the High Court is called for due to the following reasons. First, the High Court did not frame any substantial question of law as is required to be framed under Section 260A of the Act though heard the appeal bipartite. High Court did not dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law; Second, the High Court dismissed the appeal without deciding any issue arising in the case saying that it is not necessary. The main issue involved in this appeal, as rightly taken note of by the High Court in para 6, was with regard to the applicability of Section 35D of the Act to the respondent assessee( Bank). It was, however, not decided. In our view, the High Court should have framed the substantial question of law on the applicability of Section 35D of the Act in addition to other questions and then should have answered them in accordance with law rather than to leave the question(s) undecided. As the issue with regard to applicability of Section 35D of the Act to the respondent Bank is already pending consideration before the High Court at the instance of the respondent in one appeal. If that be so, both the appeals, in our view, should be decided together - Thus we are of the view that the impugned order of HC is not legally sustainable - The appeal is accordingly remanded to the High Court for its decision on merits in accordance with law
|