9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the question of whether the Revenue and the assessee should be compelled to litigate up to the Supreme Court unnecessarily, particularly when parties can be saved from avoidable legal proceedings and expenses without causing injustice. The specific issue in this case pertains to the validity of a protective assessment framed by the Income-tax Officer and whether it was rightly vacated by the Tribunal. Details of the judgment: The decision of the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal hinged on whether the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of Bapalal Parshottamdas was disrupted in a particular year. The assessee, Surendra Gulabchand Modi, disagreed with the Revenue's stance on this matter in previous assessment years. To prevent complications and potential harm to the Revenue if the Supreme Court ruled differently, the Income-tax Officer made a protective assessment for the relevant year. The issue of HUF disruption was already pending before the Supreme Court, and the Department's position was at risk depending on the Supreme Court's decision. Despite the assessee's request to adjourn the appeal before the Tribunal until the Supreme Court's decision, the Tribunal rejected the plea solely based on the age of the matter and the perceived lack of hardship to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the protective assessment. The judgment emphasized that when a crucial question is pending before the Supreme Court, parties should not be compelled to engage in multiple avoidable legal proceedings. Granting the request to adjourn the matter until the Supreme Court's decision would have been legally sound, proper, and pragmatic. The Tribunal's decision to reject the request solely based on the age of the matter was deemed inadequate. The judgment highlighted that the paramount consideration should be to avoid unnecessary litigation and costs for the parties, as long as no prejudice is caused to either side. Therefore, the Tribunal's refusal to grant the adjournment request was found to be unjustified. In conclusion, the judgment answered the referred question in the negative, indicating that the Tribunal erred in vacating the protective assessment and proceeding with the matter instead of blocking it until the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal was instructed to keep the appeal pending and await the Supreme Court's decision to align with it. The judgment concluded by stating that the Tribunal should take necessary steps to implement the opinion provided, and no costs were awarded in this matter.
|
