2023 (8) TMI 99 - SCH - Income Tax

Supreme Court Restores Appeals Despite Delay, Citing Importance of Legal Questions; Appellant to Pay Costs.

The SC set aside the Delhi HC's dismissal of appeals due to significant delays in refiling, which were 1110, 1117, and 991 days, respectively. The SC ... Inordinate delay of 1110, 1117 and 991 days respectively in refiling the said appeals - High Court has observed that the explanation offered for the condonation of delay sought for by the appellant herein could not be accepted, as, for a long time the appeals were lying in defect and therefore could not be listed before the Court - HELD THAT:- As we find that the High Court has not dealt with the appeals on merits and if the substantial questions of law are of significance then the High Court, in our view, ought to have condoned the delay in refiling the appeals and considered the cases on merits. We note that initially the appeals were filed in time. However, it is also an aspect to be noted that the delay of 1110, 1117 and 991 days respectively in refiling the respective appeals is considerable. Hence, we set aside the impugned orders and allow these appeals and restore the appeals before the High Court with cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to be paid by the appellant to the respondents in each of these appeals within a period of four weeks from today. Issues involved: Condonation of delay in refiling appeals before the High Court due to inordinate delay.Summary:The Supreme Court heard the appeal regarding the dismissal of appeals before the Delhi High Court due to significant delays in refiling. The High Court dismissed the appeals based on delays of 1110, 1117, and 991 days respectively, attributing it to the appeals being stuck in defects. The appellant argued that the substantial questions of law raised were not considered, causing prejudice to the Revenue, and requested the orders to be set aside for a fresh consideration on merits. The respondents opposed condoning the delays, stating that the blame on the Department's counsel was unjust as defects were not rectified by the appellant.The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not address the appeals on merits despite the significance of the questions of law. While acknowledging the considerable delays in refiling, the Court set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals and restoring them before the High Court with a cost of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by the appellant to the respondents in each appeal within four weeks. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not consider the appeals on merits until the costs are paid, ensuring the interest of justice. A four-week period was granted for rectifying any defects in the restored appeals before the High Court, and pending applications were disposed of.