Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 670
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) - Appellant
Vs.
PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 302 of 2019)
Decided On : 07-01-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG. Mr. Devashish Bharuka and Mr. S.A. Habeeb, Advocates and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rohan Deshpande and Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, AOR.
Satisfactory explanation for delay in filing an appeal, importance of the matter in determining the appeal's fate, and the need to compensate the respondent.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Appeal Dismissal - The court set aside the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court due to delay, stating that the delay was satisfactorily explained and the appeal should be heard on merits. The delay was attributed to a difference of opinion between officers and the subsequent decision to file the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 362 days, which was deemed unsatisfactorily explained.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and directed the High Court to hear the appeal on merits, while also allowing the condonation of delay subject to the payment of costs by the appellant to the respondent.
Issues: Dismissal of appeal due to delay, sufficiency of explanation for delay, compensation for respondent, remittance of the matter back to the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained, and the importance of the matter warranted the appeal to be heard on merits. The court also emphasized the need to compensate the respondent and remit the matter back to the High Court for a decision on the appeal.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appeal dismissal, allowed the condonation of delay with the payment of costs, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a decision on the appeal.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. We find that the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein on the ground of delay. No doubt, there was a delay of 362 days. As per the High Court, the said delay is not satisfactorily explained. We have, however, gone through the application for condonation of delay which was submitted before the High Court. It appears that the main cause of delay was difference of opinion between the two Officers and ultimately legal opinion was taken and it was decided to file the appeal.
4. In view of the aforesaid and having regard to the importance of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court should hear the appeal on merits. We, thus, set aside the impugned Order.
5. The respondent can be compensated by award of cost. We condone the delay in filing the appeal in the High Court, subject to payment of cost of Rupees one lakh, to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within a period of four weeks. The matter is remitted back to the High Court. The High Court shall decide the appeal on merits.
6. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
