S. 260A : Appeal-High Court -Condonation of abnormal delay of 1371 days in removing office objections: High Court refused to condone delay and held that Dept must “set its own house in order by sacking and removing the delinquent and negligent officials or penalising them otherwise so as to subserve larger public interest”. The Supreme Court reversed this holding High Court ought to have condoned the delay and not dismissed the appeal- Dept to pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Welfare Fund.

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court–Delay of 1662 days-Apex court held that, the High Court should not take a technical approach and refuse to condone the delay when appeals for earlier years with identical issues are already pending before it-Delay was condoned and the matter was directed to hear the appeal on merits.

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Mere pendency of appeal in the High Court does not preclude the Tribunal’s power of rectification, (ii) Fact that there is difference of opinion between the two members of the Tribunal would, by itself, nor mean that the error sought to be rectified is not apparent on the record & (iii) The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to recall an order based on submissions made and upon consideration of materials on record-The power of rectification are circumscribed with the condition that the same can be exercised for correcting error be of law or facts apparent on record- The jurisdiction to correct errors vested in the Tribunal is not akin to review powers. [S. 153A]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake– Pronouncement of order- An order passed by the Tribunal even one day after the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of hearing causes prejudice to the assessee and is liable to be recalled and the appeal posted for fresh hearing. [S.254(1), R. 34(5)(c)]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties-The Appellate Tribunal should give independent reasons showing consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee-An appellate order which affirms the order of the lower authority need not be a very detailed order- Nevertheless, there should be some indication in the order passed by the appellate authority of due application of mind to the contentions raised by the asseseee in the context of findings of the lower authority which were the subject matter of the challenge before it.

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Condonation of delay-An assessee supported by large number of CAs & Advocates cannot seek condonation of delay on the ground that the officer handling the issue was transferred-A party cannot sleep over its rights and expect its appeal to be entertained. The fact that the issue on merits is covered in favour of the assessee makes no difference to the aspect of condonation of delay. [S. 234E]

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal -Delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal caused by the fault of CA/Counsel has to be condoned-the expression “sufficient cause” should be interpreted to advance substantial justice- If there is “sufficient cause”, the period of delay cannot be regarded as excessive or inordinate–Delay was condoned. [S. 254(1)]

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-If a decision is challenged by the assessee both on the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits, the appellate authority has to decide both issues. He cannot decline to decide one of the issues on the basis that the decision on the other issue renders it academic. This approach leads to multiplication of proceedings and leads to delay- CIT(A) is directed to decide both the issues. [S. 254(1), R.27]

S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) –Strictures-The total callous, negligent and disrespectful behaviour shown by the Departmental authorities in this Court should not be tolerated at all. It is this kind of lack of judicial discipline which if it goes unpunished, will lead to more litigation and chaos and such public servants are actually a threat to the society. Commissioner Service tax (Appeals) should pay cost of Rs. 1 lakh from his personal funds.

S. 194IA : Deduction at source-Transfer of certain immoveable property other than agricultural land- The exemption of Rs. 50 lakh in S. 194IA(2) is applicable w.r.t. the amount related to each transferee and not with reference to the amount as per sale deed- Each transferee is a separate income tax entity and the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person-Each purchase consideration being Only Rs. 37, 50,000 , provision is not applicable. [S. 194IA(2), 201(1), 201(IA)]