^I? ^y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR Coram: Hon' ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon' ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Income Tax Aopeal No. 17 of Assistant Commissioner of income Tax-2(1), Raipur(CG) Vs. M/s A.C. Strips Pvt. Ltd., R.S. Shukla Road, Raipur (CG) Respondent Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 Present: Shri S.Rajeshwar Rao, Jr. Standing CounseS for the appellant. Shri Shashank Dubey, Sr. counsel for the respondent. Oral Order (Passed on 19-11-2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J. The appeilant/Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act, 1961") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") and has been admitted on 16.09.2009 on the following substantial questions of iaw:- 'Whether the Tribunal erred in law in accepting the CIT(A)'s finding that the disallowance of Rs,23,23,786/- being payments to sister concerns was u/s 40A(2)(b) while overlooking the fact that the Assessing Officer had not made the disallowance u/s 40A(2) but on the ground that the payments were not for business purposes as no services had been rendered by the sister concerns7' 'Whether the Tribuna! was justified in holding that as {he receipt of commission payment of Rs.12,03,881/- had been taxed in the hands of M/s A.C. Steels, the payment was an ailowable expenditure in the assessee's hands even though the facts cleariy show that no such job work was entrusted to or carried out by M/s. A.C. Steels?" (2) Shri Shashank Dubey, Sr. counsel with Ms. Smiti Sharma, counsel for the respondent has raised the preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the present appeal was filed with delay of three days. Therefore, it is liable for dismissal as barred by limitation. Referring to the order dated 16-6-2009 passed by this court in Tax Case (Income Tax Appeat) No. 21 of 2007 in the matter of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Bhilai vs. Shri IVIahavir Prasad Venn, Prop. Durga Jwellers, Jawahar Market, Camp-2, Bhilai, he submitted that that the time altowed for preferring the appeal under Section 260-A of the Act is unextendable and the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 including 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the appeals preferred undertheAct, 1961. (3) The above position of law is not disputed by Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and he also does not dispute that there is three days delay in filing this appeal. (4) ln that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed as barred b^jimitation. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R-N. Chandrakar Judge Priya