Case Law Details
Gupta Emerald Mines Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT (Supreme Court of India)
Introduction: In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of delay in the communication of orders from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to the appellant in the case of Gupta Emerald Mines Pvt Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). The case revolved around the delayed communication of CIT(A)’s order and its impact on the subsequent proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Supreme Court’s decision provides important insights into the condonation of delay and the appellant’s right to a fair hearing.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background of the Case: The case originated with the ITAT dismissing the appeals filed by Gupta Emerald Mines Pvt Ltd due to an unexplained delay of 246 days. The primary ground for dismissal was the delay in filing the appeals.
2. Communication Delay: However, the Supreme Court observed that the order issued by CIT(A) on 21.02.2013 was only communicated to the appellant on 18.12.2013. Subsequently, the appellant obtained a certified copy of the order on 30.12.2013 and promptly filed the appeals on 06.01.2014. This significant delay in the communication of the CIT(A)’s order was a crucial factor in the case.
3. Condonation of Delay: In light of the delayed communication, the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Recognizing the substantial amount involved in the appeals, the Court considered it essential to afford the appellant the opportunity to contest the appeals before the ITAT.
4. Restoration of Matters: The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the ITAT’s order dated 16.02.2018, as well as the decisions of the High Court dated 06.08.2018 and 01-08-2018. The matters were restored to the file of the ITAT for reconsideration based on their merits. However, the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards costs to the respondent.
5. Court’s Rationale: The Court’s decision was grounded in principles of fairness and the right to a proper hearing. It acknowledged the crucial role of timely communication of orders in the appellate process and emphasized the need to address delays that are beyond the appellant’s control. The appellant’s opportunity to present their case on its merits was considered a fundamental aspect of justice.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Gupta Emerald Mines Pvt Ltd vs. PCIT highlights the significance of timely communication of orders in the context of income tax appeals. The Court’s decision to condone the delay in filing the appeals underscores the principle of ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant. It serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural justice in the Indian tax system, ultimately ensuring that taxpayers have a reasonable opportunity to contest their cases based on their merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 16022018 dismissed the appeals on the ground that there is a delay of 246 days and there is no explanation for condoning the delay.
4. We have noticed that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 21.02.2013 was communicated to the Appellant only on 18.12.2013. Thereafter, the Appellant immediately obtained a certified copy of the order passed by CIT(A) on 30.12.2013 and preferred an appeal on 06.01.2014. In the facts and circumstances of the case we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. Considering the amount involved in the appeals, we are also of the opinion that the appellant must have an opportunity of contesting the appeals before the Tribunal.
5. In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 16.02.2018, followed by decisions of the High Court dated 06.08.2018 & 01.08.2018 and restore the matters back on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for consideration of the matters on merits. This will be subject to the Appellant’s paying an amount of Rs.25,000/ towards cost to the respondent.
6. The appeals are disposed of, in terms of the signed order.
Author Bio
