2008 (11) TMI 64 - HC - Income Tax

Set aside impugned order for inordinate judgment delay and failure to address submissions; require guidelines to prevent recurrence

SHIVSAGAR VEG. RESTAURANT Versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI

The HC allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's impugned order insofar as challenged, holding that unexplained, inordinate delay in delivering ... Delay in delivering judgment - rule of natural justice - Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal after more than 4 months from the date of hearing without dealing with propositions and case laws relied by the Appellant, suffers from non application of mind and non consideration of material on record and therefore bad in law - Held That:- The basic rule of natural justice requires recording of reasons in support of the order. The order has to be self-explanatory and should not keep the higher court guessing for reasons. Reasons provide live link between conclusion and evidence that vital link is a safe guard against arbitrariness, passion and prejudice. Reason is a manifestation of mind of adjudicator. It is a tool for judging the validity of the order under challenge. It gives opportunity to the higher court to see whether or not the adjudicator has proceeded on the relevant consideration, material and evidence. Having said so, the inordinate unexplained delay in pronouncement of the impugned judgment has also rendered it vulnerable. We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001 (8) TMI 1330 - SUPREME COURT] and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that behalf. Omission to make reference to the contentions canvassed can only be attributed to the delayed delivery of judgment. In the circumstances, without going into the merits or demerits of the impugned order, delay in delivery of judgment by itself is sufficient to set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal to the extent it is challenged by the Appellant. In the result, appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it is challenged. Issues:1. Delay in delivering judgment by the Appellate Tribunal.2. Lack of reasons provided in the judgment.3. Failure to consider propositions of law and case laws relied upon by the Appellant.4. Need for guidelines on timely delivery of judgments by the Appellate Tribunal.Issue 1: Delay in delivering judgment by the Appellate Tribunal:The High Court addressed the issue of a significant delay in delivering the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal, which was almost four months after the hearing. The Court emphasized that justice delayed is justice denied, citing various legal precedents that highlighted the importance of timely delivery of judgments. The Court noted that the delay in pronouncing the judgment without any valid reason rendered the judgment vulnerable and unsustainable. The Court referred to cases where judgments were set aside due to delays ranging from four to ten months, emphasizing the need for timely justice delivery to maintain litigants' confidence in the legal system.Issue 2: Lack of reasons provided in the judgment:The Court highlighted the necessity of providing reasons in judgments, stating that reasoned orders are essential for the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that the absence of reasons in the impugned order made it unsustainable, as it failed to provide clarity and justification for the decision. Referring to legal maxims and judicial precedents, the Court underscored that the right to reason is fundamental in ensuring a fair and transparent judicial process. The Court stressed that reasons in an order serve as a vital link between the conclusion and the evidence, guarding against arbitrariness and prejudice.Issue 3: Failure to consider propositions of law and case laws relied upon by the Appellant:The Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal without dealing with the propositions of law and case laws relied upon by the Appellant. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal, being the final authority of facts, must appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below, and provide its own reasons for disagreeing with the lower authorities. The Court stated that merely stating that the conclusions are fair and in accordance with the law without discussing the case laws and propositions is insufficient. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal must examine the validity of reasons given and findings recorded, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant legal aspects in the judgment.Issue 4: Need for guidelines on timely delivery of judgments by the Appellate Tribunal:The Court directed the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame guidelines similar to those laid down by the Apex Court to prevent delayed delivery of judgments. The Court stressed the importance of issuing appropriate administrative directions to ensure timely disposal of cases. The Court mandated that all revisional and appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act decide matters within three months from the date the case is closed for judgment. The Court underscored the significance of timely justice delivery to prevent denial of justice, setting a precedent for efficient case management within the legal system.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment in this case highlighted the critical issues of delayed judgment delivery, lack of reasons in the judgment, failure to consider legal propositions, and the necessity for guidelines to ensure timely justice delivery by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court's decision emphasized the fundamental principles of providing reasoned orders, considering all legal aspects, and maintaining efficiency in the legal process to uphold the integrity and fairness of the judicial system.