Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Commissioner Of Income Tax (central)-iii v. M/s Surya Vinayaka Industries Ltd

Commissioner Of Income Tax (central)-iii v. M/s Surya Vinayaka Industries Ltd

(Supreme Court Of India)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4640/2023 (@ SLP (C) NO. 30212/2017) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2023 (@ SLP (C) NO. 30213/2017) | 24-07-2023

1. Leave granted.

2. As per the Office Report, respondent(s) has been served on 06.03.2023, but there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent(s).

3. In the circumstances, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s).

4. The appellant/Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeals (ITA Nos.469/2016 and 806/2016) on the ground of delay of 707 days in refiling.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that there was no delay in the filing of the appeals before the High Court but there was delay in refiling. The High Court could have condoned the said delay in refiling but has instead dismissed the appeals. Consequently the appellant/Revenue has been prejudice in not getting its appeals heard on merits and that the appellant(s) has a good case on merits. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the High Court by condoning the delay in refiling and for consideration of the appeals on merits. As already noted there is no representation on behalf of the respondent(s), although served.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant(s) and on perusal of the material on record, including the impugned order, we find that the delay of 707 days has occurred in refiling and not in filing of the appeals. Therefore, in our view, the High Court ought to have condoned the said delay in refiling and heard the appeals on merits rather than dismissing the same without hearing on merits. In order to give an opportunity to the appellant(s) herein as well as the respondent(s) to seek hearing of the appeals on merits, the impugned order is set aside, the matter is remanded to the High Court while condoning the said delay of 707 days in refiling the appeals.

7. Since the respondent is not represented, the Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this order to the respondent(s).

8. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Advocate List

  • Mr. N Venaktraman, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Nikhil Majitha, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Choursia, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Hemank Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR

  • None.

Bench
  • HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Eq Citations
  • [2023] 294 TAXMAN 702
  • (2024) 337 CTR (SC) 375
  • LQ/SC/2023/802
Head Note

Constitution of India — Art. 136 — Remand — Delay in refiling appeals — High Court dismissing appeals on ground of delay of 707 days in refiling — Held, High Court ought to have condoned said delay in refiling and heard appeals on merits rather than dismissing same without hearing on merits — Matter remanded to High Court while condoning said delay of 707 days in refiling appeals — Registry directed to dispatch a copy of this order to respondent(s)