9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 201 - SC - Income TaxHearing of appeal by High Court - framing of substantial question(s) of law u/s 260A (3) - appeal heard on merit without framing questions, on the basis of questions of law raised in appeal - interpretation of language of section 40(a)(ia) - TDS u/s 194C - payments made to the harvesters and transporters - HELD THAT - We find that in Para 4, the High Court observed, Assessee has raised the following questions of law in its appeals and then set out four questions. Likewise, in Para 5, the High Court observed, Revenue has raised the following questions of law in its appeals and then set out three questions. It is not in dispute that the High Court did not frame any question as required u/s 260A (3) As relying on M/s A.A. Estate Pvt. Ltd. . 2019 (4) TMI 957 - SUPREME COURT these appeals have to be allowed and the case needs to be remanded to the High Court for hearing afresh on merits. Appeals allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appeals are remanded to the High Court for hearing afresh only after framing appropriate substantial question(s) of law as required u/s 260A( 3).
Issues:
1. Failure to frame questions of law under Section 260A (3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Appeal procedure non-compliance by the High Court. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Failure to frame questions of law under Section 260A (3) of the Income Tax Act The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the final judgment of the High Court, where the appellant challenged the dismissal of their appeals while the Commissioner's appeals were allowed. The High Court did not frame any questions of law as required under Section 260A (3) of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the questions framed by the Court under this section for hearing the appeal on merits. Referring to a previous case, the Court clarified that questions proposed by the appellant for admission of the appeal differ from the questions framed by the High Court. It highlighted that the appeal is heard solely on the questions framed by the Court, and if the High Court deemed no substantial question of law, it should have dismissed the appeal accordingly. The Court concluded that the High Court did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 260A of the Act, necessitating a remand of the case for a fresh decision based on the proper framing of substantial questions of law. Issue 2: Appeal procedure non-compliance by the High Court The Supreme Court, in line with the precedent set in a similar case, found the facts of the present case analogous to those in the previous judgment. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeals and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits after framing appropriate substantial questions of law as mandated by Section 260A (3) of the Act. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the issues involved, directing the High Court to decide the appeals strictly in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any previous observations. This decision highlighted the necessity for the High Court to adhere to procedural requirements and ensure a fair and lawful hearing process in line with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on the procedural irregularities in the High Court's handling of the appeals, emphasizing the significance of framing substantial questions of law under Section 260A (3) of the Income Tax Act for a proper hearing on merits. The decision underscored the importance of following legal procedures to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in appeal processes.
|
