TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
References:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6 (3) , BANGALORE Versus M/s SSA’S EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT I.T.A. NO . 380 OF 2015 Dated: - 23 November 2015
From the above judgments we find as follows:
The honourable High Court of Karnataka pronounced judgment on 23 November 2015 that is much less than one year from filing of appeal.
The honourable Supreme Court pronounced judgment on 05 August 2016 that is very quickly as appeal was filed in year 2016 so appeal has been decided within maximum of seven months.
Author tried to find out date of filing however it could not be due to unavailable date on websites.
Precedence relied on by High Court:
In the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows the High Court followed detailed judgment dt.13 December 2012 of Karnatak High Court in context of different situations relating to levy of penalty. The judgment is reported as follows:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHS. Versus M/s MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & OTHS.
ITA No. 2564,2565/2005 , ITA No.5020,5022,5023/2009 & ITA No.5025, 5026/2010
Dated: - 13 December 2012 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Other Citation: [2013] 359 ITR 565
It seems that revenue has not challenged judgment dt. 13.12.12 otherwise counsels in subsequent cases before the same High Court and the Supreme Court, must have pointed out that appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.
These cases shows that if appeal are filed quickly and timely and proceeded timely without taking adjournments, cases can be decided quickly. We are noticing such trend in many tax appeals wherein we find that right from Tribunal to Supreme Court in many cases matters have been decided quickly.
The judgment of the Supreme Court:
Before the Supreme Court the following counsels appeared:
- Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv.,
- Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.,
- Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.( it is not clear for whom she appeared because there is blank after for … she may be for Respondent)
Therefore three learned Advocates appeared before the Supreme Court. They were heard. Senior Counsels appearing must have informed the Court status of related cases. Therefore, in this case it would have been better option for revenue to withdraw appeal ( as it was filed un-necessarily)
Court held as follwos:
“ Delay condoned.
We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”
We find that there was some delay in filing of appeal be Revenue. How much delay was? This could not be ascertained. However, delay itself shows that Revenue was not serious and appeal was filed just for sake of filing appeal – to show some work being done. This approach must come to an end.
The supreme Court held that ‘we do not find any merit in this petition’ . This means that the Supreme Court has considered issue on merit and decided against the Revenue and affirmed judgment of the High Court.
Lower Courts must learn:
It is high time that lower courts must also learn to quickly decide matters. For this purpose procedures need to be simplified and practice of prolonging cases to linger must be stopped. Advocates and other eligible practioners must act promptly do work without delay and should not seek un-necessary adjournments. Courts must also go into practical aspects with a view to render meaningful justice that is right justice and at right time. Due to procedural matters justice should neither be denied nor must be delayed.
However, unfortunately in civil matters as well as in Criminal matters procedures are so slow and clumsy that in good proportion of cases justice is denied due to procedural aspects and in large proportion of cased, justice is delayed very much.
For example author himself is having cases pending before Rent Controller against his tenants for 12 years, on matter of fixation of fair rent. As per provisions such cases can be decided within short period of 3-6 months, if practical aspects are considered in practical manner and hearing is taken only on disputes issue and un-necessary time is not wasted on procedural aspects and adjournments sought by tenants on frivolous grounds. Even on admitted facts, un-necessary disputes are raised or examination is sought just to delay fixation of rent and tenants are getting benefit by depositing low rent instead of increased rent as per clear law.