2013 (7) TMI 692 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of order - Whether the CIT (A) is justified in making arbitrary disallowance on the ground of non availability of the reasons variation in the GP Ratio which had been filed alongwith the GP/ NP comparative chart Held that - order passed by the CIT (A) is cryptic and grossly violative of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice - every judicial/ quasi-judicial body/ authority must pass a well reasoned order which should reflect the application of mind by the concerned authority - section 250(6) also mandates that the order shall state the points for determining the decision and the reasons for the decision Vodafone Essar Ltd. Vs. DRP(2011 (12) TMI 22 - Delhi High Court) held it is obligatory on its part of the quasi- judicial body to ascribe cogent and germane reasons as the same is the heart and soul of the matter - a decision does not mean merely a conclusion but it embraces within its fold the reasons forming basis for the conclusion - set aside the order of the CIT (A) and to restore the matter for deciding the issues/ grounds raised by the assessee before it appeal decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Arbitrary disallowance of Rs.15,00,000 on grounds of non-availability of reasons for variation in GP Ratio.
2. Denial of reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee by CIT (A).
3. Lack of reasoning in the order of CIT (A) and failure to pass a speaking order.
4. Restoration of the matter to CIT (A) for deciding the issues afresh.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the arbitrary disallowance of Rs.15,00,000 due to a decline in the gross profit ratio. The Assessing Officer made the addition based on an estimated basis as the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the fall in GP rate. The CIT (A) upheld the addition without affording proper hearing to the assessee, leading to a lack of reasoned decision-making. The Tribunal observed that the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal without analyzing the issues raised, violating the rules of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of quasi-judicial bodies passing well-reasoned orders to ensure fairness and adherence to legal procedures.

2. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (A) failed to provide a speaking order, violating the requirement under section 250(6) of the Act to state the points for determination, decision thereon, and reasons for the decision. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the necessity for quasi-judicial authorities to provide cogent and germane reasons for their decisions. The lack of reasoning in the CIT (A) order led the Tribunal to set aside the decision and remand the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a speaking order that addresses all grounds and issues raised by the assessee.

3. The Tribunal directed the CIT (A) to re-decide the appeal after allowing sufficient opportunity to both parties and passing a speaking order in accordance with the law. The restoration of the main ground to the CIT (A) for proper consideration aimed to rectify the procedural deficiencies observed in the initial decision-making process. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal, highlighting the importance of adherence to legal procedures and the principles of natural justice in tax dispute resolution.

4. The Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the procedural irregularities in the CIT (A) order, emphasizing the need for reasoned decision-making and fair opportunities for parties to present their case. By setting aside the initial decision and remanding the matter for fresh consideration, the Tribunal aimed to uphold the principles of justice and legal compliance in tax dispute resolution. The comprehensive analysis highlighted the significance of procedural fairness and the requirement for quasi-judicial bodies to provide well-reasoned, speaking orders in line with legal mandates and precedents.