COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I versus M/S RASHTRADOOT (HUF)

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 27-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I
v.
M/S RASHTRADOOT (HUF)
(Civil Appeal No.2362 of  2019)
FEBRUARY 27, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.260A – Substantial question of law
arising not framed by High Court while deciding the appeal – In
the instant case, High Court did not dismiss the appeal in limine but
dismissed it after hearing both the parties – Correctness of – Held:
In such a situation, High Court should have framed the questions
and answered them by assigning the reasons accordingly one way
or the other by exercising powers under sub-sections (4) and (5) of
s.260A of the Act – In the absence of any discussion or/and the
reasoning/ground  as to why the order of ITAT did not suffer from
any illegality and why the grounds of Revenue are not acceptable
and why the appeal does not involve any substantial questions of
law or though framed cannot be answered in Revenue’s favour, the
impugned order suffers from jurisdictional errors and, therefore,
legally unsustainable for want of compliance of the requirements
of sub-sections (4) and (5) of s.260A of the Act – Matter remitted to
High Court for consideration afresh – Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 – s.100.
Judgments/Orders – Reasoned/Speaking order – Every
order/judgment, which decides the lis between the parties, must
contain the reasons/grounds for arriving at a particular
conclusion – In order to decide as to whether the impugned order is
legally sustainable or not, the Appellate Court is entitled to know
as to what impelled the Court below to pass such order in favour of
one party and against the aggrieved party – In the instant case,
this requirement was missing and, therefore, interference was called
for – Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.260A.
                                        [2019] 4 S.C.R. 868
868
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
869
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court,
the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court neither discussed and nor
assigned any reason in support of its conclusion for the dismissal
of the appeal. The observation made in paragraph 13 that “In
view of the above” did not lead anywhere because, in the
paragraphs 1 to 12, no reasons were mentioned except the facts
and the submissions. That apart, the High Court while deciding
the appeal heard the counsel for the parties, yet did not frame
any substantial question of law arising in the case. [Paras 9, 10
and 11] [872-D-F]
2.   Section 260A of the Act is akin to Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with addition of sub-sections (6)(a),
6(b) and (7) of Section 260A of the Act. The High Court has
jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal filed under Section 260A of the
Act on the ground that it does not involve any substantial question
of law. Such dismissal is considered as a dismissal of the appeal
in limine, i.e., dismissal without issuing any notice of appeal to
the respondent and without hearing the respondent.  The High
Court has also the jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal by answering
the questions framed on merits or by dismissing the appeal on
the ground that the questions though framed but such questions
does/do not arise in the appeal. The High Court, though may not
have framed any particular question at the time of admitting the
appeal along with other question, yet it has the jurisdiction to
frame additional question at a later stage before final hearing of
the appeal by assigning reasons as provided in proviso to Section
260A(4) and Section 260A(5) of the Act and lastly, the High Court
has jurisdiction to allow the appeal but this the High Court can
do only after framing the substantial questions of law and hearing
the respondent by answering the questions framed in appellant’s
favour. However, in this case, the High Court did not dismiss the
appeal in limine but dismissed it after hearing both the parties.
In such a situation, the High Court should have framed the
question(s) and answered them by assigning the reasons
accordingly one way or the other by exercising powers under
sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 260A of the Act. [Paras 12, 13,
14 and 15] [872-G-H; 873-A-E]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I  v.
M/S RASHTRADOOT (HUF)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
3.  Every order/judgment, which decides the lis between
the parties, must contain the reasons/grounds for arriving at a
particular conclusion. Indeed, what is decisive for deciding the
case is not the co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.