2018 (11) TMI 1127 - SC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - appeal was defective and the appellant took abnormal time of 1371 days in removing those defects - Held that - Since there was abnormal delay, the Registrar/Prothonotary Senior Master of the Bombay High Court passed the Order dismissing the appeal for non-removal of office objections. The appellant herein took out a Notice of Motion against the aforesaid Order which has been rejected by the High Court vide the impugned Judgment. No doubt, there is a long delay in removing the objections, we are of the opinion that in a case like this the High Court should have condoned the delay in removing the office objections and heard the matter on merits. However, for the said delay caused by the appellant, the appellant shall pay cost of Rupees one lac within four weeks, which shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association Lawyers' Welfare Fund - we condone the delay in removing office objections and remit the matter to the High Court for consideration of the case on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in removing defects in appeal filed before High Court.
2. Dismissal of appeal by High Court for non-removal of office objections.
3. Condonation of delay and remitting the matter to High Court for consideration on merits.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of abnormal delay in removing defects in the appeal filed before the High Court by the Department. The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Court noted that the appellant took an abnormal time of 1371 days in rectifying the defects in the appeal. An application for condonation of delay was also submitted. The Registrar of the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal for non-removal of office objections due to the significant delay. The Court acknowledged the delay but opined that in such cases, the High Court should have condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the matter on its merits.

2. The next issue involved the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court for the failure to rectify the office objections within the stipulated time frame. The appellant had filed a Notice of Motion against the Order of dismissal, which was ultimately rejected by the High Court. The Supreme Court, while recognizing the delay caused by the appellant, ordered the appellant to pay a cost of Rupees one lakh within four weeks. This amount was directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association Lawyers' Welfare Fund. Despite the delay, the Supreme Court intervened, condoned the delay in removing office objections, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits.

3. The final issue addressed by the Supreme Court was the condonation of delay and the subsequent remitting of the matter to the High Court for a thorough examination on merits. The Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of considering the case on its substantive merits rather than solely focusing on procedural delays. By directing the payment of costs and remitting the matter for a fresh consideration, the Supreme Court ensured that justice was served despite the delays caused by the appellant. The judgment highlighted the need for a balanced approach in dealing with delays in legal proceedings while upholding the principles of justice and fairness.