2023 (8) TMI 43 - SCH - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Delay in filing of refilling of appeal - Delhi High Court dismissing the appeals 2017 (2) TMI 1538 - DELHI HIGH COURT on the ground of delay of 707 days in refiling - appellant(s) submitted that there was no delay in the filing of the appeals before the High Court but there was delay in refiling and High Court could have condoned the said delay in refiling but has instead dismissed the appeals - HELD THAT - We find that the delay of 707 days has occurred in refiling and not in filing of the appeals. Therefore, in our view, the High Court ought to have condoned the said delay in refiling and heard the appeals on merits rather than dismissing the same without hearing on merits. In order to give an opportunity to the appellant(s) herein as well as the respondent(s) to seek hearing of the appeals on merits, the impugned order is set aside, the matter is remanded to the High Court while condoning the said delay of 707 days in refiling the appeals.

Summary

Issues involved:
The main issue in this case is the delay of 707 days in refiling the appeals before the High Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeals by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

Judgment Summary:

Delay in Refiling of Appeals:
The appellant/Revenue was aggrieved by the dismissal of appeals due to a delay of 707 days in refiling. The appellant argued that there was no delay in the initial filing before the High Court, and the delay occurred only in refiling. The appellant contended that the High Court should have condoned the delay in refiling and heard the appeals on merits. The Supreme Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel and examining the impugned order, found that the delay indeed occurred in refiling and not in the initial filing. The Court held that the High Court should have condoned the delay and considered the appeals on merits. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the High Court, and condoned the delay of 707 days in refiling the appeals.

Remand to High Court:
The Supreme Court, in order to provide an opportunity for both the appellant and the respondent to have their appeals heard on merits, directed the matter to be remanded to the High Court. The Court emphasized the importance of hearing the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them without proper consideration. As the respondent was not represented, the Registry was instructed to send a copy of the order to the respondent. The appeals were allowed with the direction to remand the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's decision focused on rectifying the procedural error of the High Court in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay in refiling. By setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the High Court, the Court ensured that both parties have the opportunity to present their case and have the appeals heard on merits.