2019 (3) TMI 1172 - SC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 362 days - reasons for delay - As per the High Court, the said delay is not satisfactorily explained - HELD THAT - The main cause of delay was difference of opinion between the two officers and ultimately legal opinion was taken and it was decided to file the appeal. In view of the aforesaid and having regard to the importance of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court should hear the appeal on merits. We, thus, set aside the impugned order. The respondent can be compensated by award of cost. We condone the delay in filing the appeal in the High Court, subject to payment of cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within a period of four weeks. The matter is remitted back to the High Court.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, hearing appeal on merits, award of costs, remittance of the matter back to the High Court.

The Supreme Court heard a case where the High Court had dismissed an appeal due to a delay of 362 days, which was not satisfactorily explained. The delay was attributed to a difference of opinion between two officers, leading to the decision to file the appeal after seeking legal opinion. The Supreme Court, considering the importance of the matter, set aside the High Court's order and directed the High Court to hear the appeal on merits. The appellant was directed to pay a cost of ?1,00,000 to the respondent within four weeks, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for further proceedings. The order was passed without notice to the respondent due to a similar order passed previously, but the respondent was given the option to approach the Court if any objections arose.

The judgment focused on the issue of delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the need for a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court considered the reasons provided, including the difference of opinion between officers and the subsequent decision-making process, before deciding to set aside the High Court's dismissal and allow the appeal to be heard on merits. The importance of the matter was a significant factor in the Court's decision to remit the case back to the High Court for further proceedings.

Another crucial issue addressed in the judgment was the award of costs to the respondent. The Court ordered the appellant to pay ?1,00,000 to the respondent within four weeks as compensation for the delay in filing the appeal. This cost was deemed necessary considering the circumstances of the case and as a measure to balance the interests of both parties involved. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring fair compensation in such situations to uphold the principles of justice and equity.

Furthermore, the judgment touched upon the procedural aspect of remitting the matter back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits. By directing the High Court to reconsider the appeal based on its merits, the Supreme Court aimed to ensure a fair and thorough examination of the case without being hindered by procedural delays. This step was essential in upholding the principles of justice and providing both parties with an opportunity to present their arguments effectively before the appropriate judicial forum.