REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4515 4524 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.14053 14062 of 2017) Ryatar Sahakari Sakkarre Karkhane Niyamit .Appellant(s) VERSUS Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax C 1 & Ors. .Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are filed against final judgment and order dated 26.02.2016 passed by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Date: 2019.05.01 16:39:16 IST Reason: Dharwad in ITA Nos.100111 100120 of 2015 1 whereby High Court dismissed ITAs filed by appellant(assessee) herein. 3. These appeals are filed by assessee against order passed by High Court by which bunch of appeals, some filed by assessee and some filed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as Act ) were disposed of. 4. So far as appeals filed by assessee were concerned, they were dismissed and so far as appeals filed by Commissioner of Income Tax were concerned, they were allowed. assessee has felt aggrieved and has filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court. 5. We do not consider it necessary to set out facts of case in detail in light of order 2 that we are passing for disposal of these appeals. 6. Heard Ms. Anitha Shenai, learned senior counsel for appellant(assessee) and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for respondents. 7. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of record of case, we are inclined to allow these appeals, set aside impugned order and remand case to High Court with request to decide appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law. 8. need to remand these appeals is called for because from perusal of order, we find that in Para 4, High Court observed, "Assessee has raised following questions of law in its appeals and then set out four questions. Likewise, in Para 5, High Court observed, "Revenue has raised 3 following questions of law in its appeals and then set out three questions. 9. It is not in dispute that High Court did not frame any question as required under Section 260 (3) of Act. 10. This Court recently examined this question in Civil Appeal No.3968 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.29524 of 2017 (PR. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 vs. M/s A.A. Estate Pvt. Ltd.) decided on 16.04.2019. Paras 21 to 26 and 28 are apposite which read as under: 21. As is clear from reading of Para 2, two questions set out in Para 2 were not questions framed by High Court as was required to be framed under Section 260 A(3) of Act for hearing appeal but were questions urged by appellant. 22. In our view, there lies distinction between questions proposed by appellant for admission of appeal and questions framed by Court. 23. questions, which are proposed by appellant, fall under Section 260 (2) (c) of Act whereas questions framed by 4 High Court fall under Section 260 (3) of Act. appeal is heard on merits only on questions framed by High Court under sub section (3) of Section 260 of Act as provided under Section 260 (4) of Act. In other words, appeal is heard only on questions framed by Court. 24. Third, if High Court was of view that appeal did not involve any substantial question of law, it should have recorded categorical finding to that effect saying that questions proposed by appellant either do not arise in case or/and are not substantial questions of law so as to attract rigor of Section 260 of Act for its admission and accordingly should have dismissed appeal in limine. 25. It was, however, not done and instead High Court without admitting appeal and framing any question of law issued notice of appeal to respondent assessee, heard both parties on questions urged by appellant and dismissed it. In our view, respondent had right to argue at time of hearing of appeal that questions framed were not involved in appeal and this respondent could urge by taking recourse to sub section (5) of Section 260 of Act. But this stage in this case did not arise because as mentioned above, High Court neither admitted appeal nor framed any question as required under sub section (3) of Section 260 of Act. expression such question referred to in sub section (5) of Section 260 of Act means questions which are framed by High Court under sub section (3) of Section 5 260 at time of admission of appeal and not one proposed in Section 260 (2) (c) of Act by appellant. 26. We are, therefore, of view that High Court did not decide appeal in conformity with mandatory procedure prescribed in Section 260 of Act. 28. In light of foregoing discussion, we consider it just and proper to remand case to High Court for deciding appeal afresh to answer questions framed above on merits in accordance with law. 11. facts of case at hand and one involved in M/s A.A. Estate Pvt. Ltd. quoted above are identical and, therefore, keeping in view law laid down by this Court in M/s A.A. Estate Pvt. Ltd.(supra), these appeals have to be allowed and case needs to be remanded to High Court for hearing afresh on merits. 12. In view of foregoing discussion, appeals are allowed. impugned order is set aside. appeals are remanded to High Court for hearing afresh only after framing appropriate substantial 6 question(s) of law as required under Section 260 A(3) of Act. 13. Having formed opinion to remand case to High Court, we have not expressed any opinion on merits of issues involved in these appeals. High Court will, therefore, decide appeals strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in impugned order and in this order. . ...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] ... ..................................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; May 01, 2019 7 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkarre Karkhane Niyamit v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax C1 & Or