LexJT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT versus SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 747 JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT v. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 4278 of 2010) MAY 7, 2010 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN CJI, DEEPAK VERMA AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] A B Income Tax Act, 1961 - s.271 (1)(c) - Levy of penalty under - Where assessed income is nil or loss - Permissibility c of - Held: Penalty is leviable, even if no tax was payable. Judgment: Cryptic judgment - Held: Brevity without clarity is likely to enter the realm of absurdity, which is impermissible - D Guidelines regarding writing of judgment - Reiterated . . Writing of judgment - Guidelines issued by Supreme Court regarding manner of writing judgments - Non- adherence of - Deprecated. The question for consideration in the present appeals was whether penalty can be levied u/s.271(1)(c) of Income tax Act, where assessed income is loss, despite E the fact that Explanation 4(a) was added to the Act and subsequently, further clause (a) was replaced by another F clause (a) which is clarificatory in nature. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Division Bench of High Court has decided the question Of law as projected before it in the appeal preferred u/s.260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in a most casual manner. The order is not only cryptic but does not even remotely deal with the arguments which were sought to be projected by the Revenue before it. It is true that brevity is an art but brevity without clarity is 747 1\ G- H 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R. A likely to enter into the realm of absurdity, which is impermissible. This is what has been reflected in the impugned order. This Court, time and again, reminded the courts performing judicial functions, the manner in which judgments/orders are to be written but, those B guidelines issued from time to time are not being adhered to. Therefore, the Court once again would like to reiterate few guidelines for the Courts, while writing orders and judgments to follow the same. [Paras 3, 4, 5 and 6) [751- E-H; 752-A] c 1.2. The guidelines are only illustrative in nature, not exhaustive and can further be elaborated looking to the need and requirement of a given case: (i) Nothing should be written in the judgment/order, which may not be germane to the facts of the case. It should have a co- o relation with the applicable law and facts. The ratio decidendi should be clearly spelt out from the judgment/ order. (ii) After preparing the draft, it is necessary to .go through the same to find out, if anything, essential to be mentioned, has escaped discussion. (iii) The ultimate E finished judgment/order should have flow and perfect sequence of events, which would continue to generate interest in the reader. (iv) Appropriate care should be taken not to load it with all legal knowledge on the subject as citation of too many judgments creates more F confusion rather than clarity. The foremost requirement is that leading judgments should be mentioned and the evolution that has taken place ever since the same were pronounced and thereafter, latest judgment in which all previous judgments have been considered, should be G mentioned. While writing judgment, psychology of the reader has also to be borne in mind, for the perception on that score is imperative. (v) Language should not be rhetoric and should not reflect a contrived effort on the part of the author. (vi) After arguments are concluded, an H endeavour should be made to pronounce the judgment JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT v. SAHEL! 749 LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD. at the earliest and in any case not beyond a period of A three months. Keeping it pending for long time sends a wrong signal to the litigants and the society. (vii) It should be avoided to give instances, which are likely to cause public agitation or to a particular society. Nothing should be reflected in the same which may hurt the feelings or B emotions of any individual or society. [Para 71 [752-B-H; 753-A-C] 1.3. In the instant case, considering the important question of law and its wide repercussions, it was least expected from the Division Bench of the High Court to C have dealt with the issue more seriously, keeping in mind the question of law that was being answered by it. At the High Court level, when a matter is considered on merits by a Division Bench, not only factual but even legal aspect of the matters is required to be considered at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.