2019 (10) TMI 402 - SCH - Income Tax

Extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of High Court - maintainability of appeal - Single Judge directing the appellant to exhaust the statutory remedy - whether the appeal requires to be decided on merit or not? - Section 115-O invoked unilaterally and without adjudication by treating the transactions as that of dividend, which would not come within the purview of Section 2(22)(d) - HELD THAT - Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Senior Advocate submitted an Affidavit-cum-Undertaking. It is taken on record. Issue notice, returnable on 14.10.2019. Dasti in addition. Liberty to serve the learned Standing Counsel for the Department, additionally. A copy shall also be served to Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned standing counsel for the Department. In the order presently under challenge, the Division Bench of the High Court had, inter alia, observed; As granted by the learned single Judge, we are inclined to grant a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority Pending further consideration, we suspend the time frame as indicated in the aforesaid part of the order of the High Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Submission of Affidavit-cum-Undertaking during submissions.
2. Notice issued returnable on a specific date.
3. Grant of additional time for filing an appeal.
4. Suspension of the time frame set by the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The judgment by the Supreme Court, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose, involved the submission of an Affidavit-cum-Undertaking by Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, a learned Senior Advocate, during his submissions. The Court duly took the Affidavit-cum-Undertaking on record, signifying its importance in the case.

2. Another crucial issue addressed in the judgment was the issuance of notice, returnable on 14.10.2019. This indicates that the Court set a specific date for the next hearing or action related to the case, providing clarity and direction in the legal proceedings.

3. The judgment also dealt with the grant of additional time for filing an appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court had previously granted a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the Supreme Court, pending further consideration, suspended the time frame set by the High Court, highlighting the Court's authority to review and modify decisions made by lower courts.

4. Lastly, the Supreme Court's decision to suspend the time frame established by the High Court demonstrated the Court's intervention in ensuring fair and just proceedings. By suspending the time frame, the Supreme Court indicated a need for further examination or deliberation on the matter, emphasizing the importance of thorough consideration in legal matters to uphold justice and equity.