(Ranjan Gogoi and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.)
Jai Hind Cycle Company Ltd., Hyderabad _______________ Appellant
v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. -1, Hyderabad ________ Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 10235 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3188 of 2015], decided on October 21, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The only point canvassed at the hearing is that the income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been decided by the High Court without framing any substantial question of law. This, the appellant contends, is impermissible on the basis of several decisions of this Court including the one in “M. Janardhana Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax” reported in (2005) 2 SCC 324.
3. Having perused the said order of the Court, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have framed the substantial question(s) of law arising in the appeal before answering the same. The High Court having not done that, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for a de novo consideration after formulating the substantial question(s) of law arising, if any.
4. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The order of the High Court dated 16.07.2014 is set aside.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3188/2015
Jai Hind Cycle Company Ltd., Hyderabad _______________ Petitioner
v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. -1, Hyderabad ________ Respondent
Date : 21/10/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Tatini Basu, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG
Ms. Liz Mathew, Adv.
Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
6. Leave granted.
7. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
———
