2005 (2) TMI 56 - HC - Income Tax

(i) Whether Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of CIT (Appeals) who deleted the addition of Rs. 1, 38, 860 made on account of value of bardana used for storing churi and korma ? (ii) Whether Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals) who directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the sale of churi korma out of total turnover while working out the deduction under section 80HHC? - Question No. (i) is answered against the Department. As regards question No. (ii) the case is remanded to the Tribunal with the direction that it should decide the appeal afresh by assigning cogent reasons.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the addition made on account of value of "bardana" used for storing "churi" and "korma."
2. Exclusion of the sale of "churi korma" from total turnover while working out the deduction under section 80HHC.

Issue 1:
The respondent filed a return for the assessment year 1988-89, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,20,900. The Assessing Officer allowed a deduction of Rs. 42,95,542 under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 80HHC. The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to allow a deduction of Rs. 47,92,659 under clause (a) of sub-section (1) and the rest under clause (b) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3)(b) of section 80HHC. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's order and emphasizing the importance of reasons in quasi-judicial decisions. The High Court noted that since the Revenue did not challenge a similar order for the previous assessment year, it cannot challenge the current order, citing the judgment in Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99.

Issue 2:
Regarding question No. (ii), the High Court found that the Tribunal's order was non-speaking, lacking reasons for approving the Commissioner's decision. The High Court emphasized the necessity of recording reasons in quasi-judicial decisions, stating it as a fundamental aspect of the rule of law. It highlighted that the absence of reasons hampers the right to judicial review and can lead to arbitrariness. Citing various legal precedents, the Court stressed the importance of giving reasons to ensure fairness and transparency in decision-making. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, answering question No. (i) against the Department and remanding question No. (ii) back to the Tribunal with directions to provide cogent reasons while deciding the appeal afresh.