S. 260A permits the filing of an appeal to the High Court within 120
days. In CIT vs. Velingkar Brothers 289 ITR 382 (Bom) (FB), The Full
Bench held that the Court had power to condone delay u/s 260A. However,
in Hongo India 236 E.L.T. 417 and Chaudharana Steels 238 E.L.T. 705,
the Supreme Court held in the context of sections 35H & 35G of the
Excise Act, that in the absence of specific powers, the High Court has
no power to condone delay. On the question whether the said judgement
of the Supreme Court would apply to s. 260A as well, HELD:
S. 35 G of the Excise Act is pari materia with s. 260 A of the I. T.
Act. S. 260 A (7) as well as s. 35 G (9) of the Excise Act provide that
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relating to appeals
to the High Court shall as far as may be, apply to the appeals filed
under the respective provisions. No such provision is to be found in
Section 35 H of the Excise Act. Therefore, the argument advanced by the
Counsel for the revenue that s. 35 G and s. 35 H of the Excise Act are
materially different cannot be said to be wholly without substance.
However, once the Apex Court has held that the High Court has no power
to condone delay in filing Appeal under s. 35 G of the Excise Act, we
have no option but to hold that this Court has no power to condone
delay under s. 260 A because s. 260 A is pari materia with s. 35 G of
the Excise Act. As the appeals were delayed, they had to be dismissed.
Note: The Finance Bill, 2009 has proposed to amend ss. 35G & 35H of the
Excise Act to supercede the said judgements of the Supreme Court.
However, no amendment has been proposed to s. 260A so far.