AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 187 wordsLeave granted.
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.
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.
We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The order of the High Court dated 16.07.2014 is set aside.