2025 (1) TMI 978 - SCH - Income Tax

Belated deposit of employees contribution towards the EPF and ESI - High Court proceeded to consider only one of the substantial questions of law and observed that the other two substantial questions of law were covered by the Judgment of this Court in Checkmates Services Pvt. Ltd . 2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT - HELD THAT - Appellant before the High Court erroneously contended that two substantial questions of law were covered by the Judgment of this Court in Checkmates Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) against the Assessee but that is not so. We find that an opportunity must be given to the appellant herein to make submissions on those two substantial questions of law and for the purpose of reconsidering whether they were covered by the judgment of this Court in Checkmates Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) against the Assessee or not. For the aforesaid purpose we have no option but to set aside the order 2023 (10) TMI 779 - DELHI HIGH COURT although the said order has been accepted by both sides and there is no challenge to the same in the context of there being any error in the said order but being assailed only for the purpose of seeking to assail the order 2023 (5) TMI 1418 - DELHI HIGH COURT and for seeking restoration ITA on the file of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on setting aside the order 2023 (10) TMI 779 - DELHI HIGH COURT dated 05.09.2023. We do not wish to consider this case on the merits of the order passed by the High Court of Delhi for the simple reason that the same has been accepted by both sides. However the said order has to be set aside as it is a final order of the High Court so as to enable ITA being restored on the file of the High court. Consequently we also set aside the interim order 2023 (5) TMI 1418 - DELHI HIGH COURT .

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the appellant should be allowed to make submissions on two substantial questions of law that were previously deemed covered by a Supreme Court judgment.
Whether the orders dated 18.05.2023 and 05.09.2023 should be set aside to allow reconsideration of the appeal by the High Court.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Whether the appellant should be allowed to make submissions on two substantial questions of law.

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellant had initially submitted that two substantial questions of law were covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmates Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, leading the High Court to consider only one remaining question.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Supreme Court recognized that the appellant's counsel made an erroneous submission, which led to the High Court's limited consideration of the appeal. The Court reasoned that the appellant should be given an opportunity to make submissions on the two questions to ensure a fair hearing.
Key evidence and findings: The appellant's counsel submitted a copy of the order dated 18.05.2023, which was taken into account by the Court.
Application of law to facts: The Court applied principles of fairness and due process, determining that the appellant should not be prejudiced by the erroneous submission of its counsel.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued against interference with the High Court's order, emphasizing the appellant's initial submission. However, the Court prioritized ensuring that all substantial questions of law are properly considered.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the appellant should be allowed to make submissions on the two substantial questions of law before the High Court.

Issue 2: Whether the orders dated 18.05.2023 and 05.09.2023 should be set aside.

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The orders in question were based on the appellant's initial submission and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Supreme Court found that setting aside the orders was necessary to allow the High Court to reconsider the appeal with the opportunity for the appellant to address all substantial questions of law.
Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the orders were accepted by both parties but needed to be set aside to ensure justice.
Application of law to facts: The Court applied procedural fairness principles, deciding that the orders should be set aside to restore the appeal for comprehensive consideration.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's argument that the orders should stand was outweighed by the need for a fair hearing on all issues.
Conclusions: The Court set aside the orders to restore the appeal to the High Court, allowing for a full hearing on all substantial questions of law.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "We find that an opportunity must be given to the appellant herein to make submissions on those two substantial questions of law and for the purpose of reconsidering whether they were covered by the judgment of this Court in Checkmates Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) against the Assessee or not."
Core principles established: The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the right to a complete hearing on all substantial questions of law.
Final determinations on each issue: The Supreme Court set aside the orders dated 18.05.2023 and 05.09.2023, restoring ITA No.267 of 2023 to the High Court for reconsideration on all substantial questions of law.

The judgment emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that all substantial legal questions are thoroughly examined, especially when prior submissions may have inadvertently limited the scope of judicial consideration. The Court's decision to set aside previous orders reflects a commitment to upholding procedural justice and ensuring that parties have the opportunity to fully present their arguments.

← Previous Next →