- (1.) THERE will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel on the proposed points of law. Since the hearing has taken sometime and since we have been excellently assisted by both sides we would like to give a short background as to why we propose to entertain this appeal. The first question relates to the interest for delayed deposit of tax deducted at source. Sec. 201 (1A) is involved. It is said that the AO, for all the assessment years excepting only one, wrongly passed orders in this regard as, by Notification No. S.O. 1536, dt. 10th April, 1989, the jurisdiction in that regard had gone over to the ITO (TDS) w.e.f. 8th May, 1989. The aggregate amount of interest exceeds Rs. 3 crore. On merits, the assessee was not successful. The point was also taken for the first time only before the Tribunal. We first thought that the point of jurisdiction does not involve a substantial question of law but only a petty, or a hole-picking one.
(3.) SEC. 260A(1) reads as follows : "(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Tribunal if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law." We are of the opinion that the phrase "a substantial question of law" means any question of law which affects the substance of the case. If the High Court is satisfied that the question is one of law, and if decided in favour of the prospective appellant will substantially affect the tax liability, or some other matter of substance in the case, then the High Court is compelled to entertain the appeal. It cannot entertain appeals only on points of law which are somehow thought by it to be sufficiently serious. Therefore, we entertain the appeal on this point.;