2015 (12) TMI 1631 - HC - Income Tax

Adjournment seeked - Held that - In this case, only after the hearing of the admission commenced and after spending sometime on it, an adjournment is sought to find out the fate of the earlier orders of the Tribunal followed by the impugned order. We make it clear that in case the Revenue does not do the necessary exercise before the appeal comes up for admission and only seek time to carry out the above exercise at time the appeal reaches hearing of admission, no time would be granted. We would be constrained to dismiss the appeal in view of the Revenue not being able to point out the fate of the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal which has merely been followed by the impugned order of the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the Revenue is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Principal Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax, Pune. This would enable him to bring it to the notice of all his Officers, so that the above exercise is carried out at the time of filing an appeal or at least before the appeal comes up for admission.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure of Revenue to follow directions regarding filing appeals based on settled issues without cogent justification.
2. Lack of due diligence in filing appeals under Section 260A of the Act.
3. Consequences for Revenue failing to conduct necessary exercise before appeal admission.

Analysis:
1. The judgment highlighted the issue of Revenue failing to adhere to directions regarding filing appeals when the issue in controversy is settled by previous decisions of the court or Tribunal, and the Revenue has accepted those decisions. The court emphasized that unless there is a significant reason such as a change in law or a later decision of a higher forum, the Revenue should not agitate the issue further. The judgment referenced various cases to support this principle, emphasizing the importance of certainty of law and equal application of law in tax matters.

2. The judgment also addressed the seriousness of filing appeals under Section 260A of the Act, noting that parties seeking to file such appeals must do so after due application of mind and should not raise frivolous or concluded issues. The court stressed that this level of diligence is expected of the State, especially after two tiers of appeal before the authorities under the Act. The judgment underscored the importance of parties considering the merit and validity of their appeals before filing them.

3. Furthermore, the judgment outlined the consequences for the Revenue failing to conduct the necessary exercise before the appeal reaches the admission stage. It warned that if the Revenue does not carry out the required exercise before the appeal is set for admission and only seeks time to do so at the hearing stage, no additional time would be granted. The court indicated that in such cases, the appeal may be dismissed due to the Revenue's inability to demonstrate the fate of earlier orders passed by the Tribunal, which were followed by the impugned order. The judgment aimed to ensure that the Revenue conducts the essential review process before the appeal reaches the admission stage to avoid unnecessary delays and dismissals.

In conclusion, the judgment underscored the importance of following established procedures and guidelines in filing appeals, especially in cases where the issue is settled by previous decisions. It emphasized the need for diligence and justification in pursuing appeals under Section 260A of the Act and outlined the consequences for failing to conduct the necessary review before the appeal admission stage.