2022 (11) TMI 916 - SCH - Income Tax

Supreme Court overturns High Court decision, stresses merits over technicalities, assesses tax settlement implications

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and condoned the 86-day delay in filing the appeal. The Court emphasized that ... Condonation of delay in preferring the appeal before HC - delay of 86 days - HELD THAT:- High Court ought to have condoned the delay of 86 days in preferring the appeal and ought not to have been too technical in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. The impugned order passed by the High Court refusing to condone the delay of 86 days and dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay of 86 days is unsustainable. Under the circumstances, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay is hereby quashed and set aside and the delay of 86 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Now, the High Court to decide and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and on its own merits Issues: Delay in preferring the appeal, condonation of delay, settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas SchemeThe Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, granted leave in a case where the High Court had refused to condone an 86-day delay in preferring the appeal. The Supreme Court opined that the High Court should have condoned the delay and not dismissed the appeal solely on technical grounds. The Court held that the High Court's order refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal was unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and condoned the 86-day delay in filing the appeal, directing the High Court to decide the matter on its merits.During the proceedings, the Assessee informed the Court that they had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Court noted that the Assessee could present this settlement before the High Court for consideration. The High Court was instructed to evaluate the implications of any settlement under the scheme in accordance with the law and on its own merits. As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to this extent, emphasizing that no costs were to be awarded in the case.In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on the issue of condoning a delay in preferring an appeal, emphasizing that technical grounds should not overshadow the merits of a case. Additionally, the Court addressed the possibility of settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, highlighting the importance of considering such settlements in legal proceedings.