CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2003) 12 DEL CK 0013

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Indocount Finance Ltd.

Delhi High Court · Decided on 15 December 2003 · Citation: (2004) 186 CTR 659 : (2004) 271 ITR 215 : (2004) 136 TAXMAN 23

HON’BLE JUDGES
Madan B. Lokur, J · D.K. Jain, J
CASE NUMBER
IT Appeal No. 182 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 364 words
1.

The issue sought to be raised by the Revenue in this appeal u/s 260A of the IT Act, 1961, already stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Limited, Pratap Singh, MGF Limited, Motor and General Finance Ltd., MGF India Limited, Rungta Irrigation Ltd. and Anuvrat (P) Limited, and, Therefore, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, survives for our consideration.

2.

It is however submitted by Mr. Jolly learned counsel for the Revenue, that in fact the penultimate paragraph of the said decision in fact supports the case of the Revenue inasmuch as the assessed. had not adduced any evidence to show that the leased out vehicles were used by the lessee in the business of running them on hire.

3.

We are unable to agree with learned counsel. We find that before the first appellate authority it was specifically pleaded on behalf of the assessed that there was no difference in the use of trucks by the assessed as owner on hire or in giving the trucks to some other party for using them "in their business on hire". The first appellate authority has not commented adversely, on the said plea. Even before the Tribunal it was never pleaded that the leased out trucks were not used in the business of hire. It is now too late in the day for the Revenue to raise such an issue for the first time in this appeal, which, having regard to the limited jurisdiction of this Court u/s 260A of the Act, cannot be permitted. It was then contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the Supreme Court has now issued notice in some of the special leave petitions filed by the Revenue on a similar issue.

4.

We are of the considered opinion that in view of the fact that the apex Court has dismissed special leave petitions filed by the Revenue as well as by the assessed against the afore-noted judgment of this Court and it has attained finality, the issue raised cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the appeal.