2018 (1) TMI 517 - SC - Income Tax

Issue not been taken into consideration by the High Court - whether the oral arguments were advanced on substantial question No.3 raised in the Memo of Appeal filed before the High Court under Section 260A? - affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant in which it has been stated that the issue of powers of Commissioner (Appeals) had come in appeal under Rule 46A and were specifically raised before the High Court - Held that - In view of the matter, in our considered opinion, if indeed such issue was raised specifically before the High Court and it has not been taken into consideration by the High Court by passing the impugned order 2006 (1) TMI 58 - DELHI High Court , the appropriate remedy for the appellant would be to file an application for review of the said order. Accordingly, we permit the appellant to file a review application before the High Court within two weeks from today. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law without raising the question of limitation.

Issues involved:
1. Examination of oral arguments on substantial question No.3 raised in the Memo of Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Issue of powers of Commissioner (Appeals) raised before the High Court and consideration in the impugned order dated 17.01.2006.
3. Permission to file a review application before the High Court within two weeks.
4. Consideration of all questions raised in the appeal in the future.
5. Disposal of the Civil Appeal with observations.

Analysis:

1. The Supreme Court examined the issue of whether oral arguments were advanced on substantial question No.3 raised in the Memo of Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the appellant was permitted to examine this aspect in a previous order dated 10.08.2017. An affidavit was filed stating that the issue of powers of Commissioner (Appeals) was raised before the High Court.

2. Regarding the issue of powers of Commissioner (Appeals) raised before the High Court, the Court observed that if this issue was specifically raised before the High Court and not considered in the impugned order dated 17.01.2006, the appropriate remedy for the appellant would be to file a review application of the said order. The Court emphasized the importance of raising such issues before the appropriate forum for consideration.

3. The Supreme Court granted permission to the appellant to file a review application before the High Court within two weeks from the date of the judgment. It clarified that if such an application is submitted, it should be considered in accordance with the law without raising any question of limitation. This step was taken to ensure that the appellant has the opportunity to address any overlooked issues in the previous order.

4. All questions raised in the appeal were left open to be raised again in the future if necessary. By allowing this flexibility, the Court ensured that the appellant could revisit any concerns or arguments if they become relevant at a later stage. This approach aimed to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in the legal process.

5. The Civil Appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned observations. The Court concluded the judgment by providing clarity on the issues discussed and the actions permitted to the appellant. The decision to dispose of the appeal with these observations marked the end of the current legal proceedings while leaving room for potential future developments based on the issues raised.

← Previous Next →