Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The Director Of Income Tax (It)-I vs M/S. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking ... on 14 July, 2017
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
1
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.7 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 33135/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-04-2015
in ITA No. 1302/2013 passed by the High Court Of Bombay)
THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S. SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 523/2016
Date : 14-07-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv.
Mr. K. Parmeshwar, Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Niraj Sheth, Adv.
Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Notice in this special leave petition was issued limited to the following question:
“Whether, at the stage of final hearing, the High Court can consider the question of law not Signature Not Verified formulated by it in terms of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 260A of the Income Tax Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2017.07.20 16:46:31 IST Reason: Act, 1961?” Learned counsel for the respondent submits that this question has been answered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in 2 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ahmedabad v. Mastek Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 252, wherein this Court has held that the High Court has power to frame the substantial question of law at the time of hearing of the appeal other than the questions on which the appeal was admitted. This power is, however, subject to two conditions:
1. The Court must be satisfied that appeal involves such questions;
2. The Court has to record reasons therefor.
Since the matter is covered by the aforesaid judgment, this special leave petition stands dismissed.
(ASHWANI KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER