9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 - N K Saini, P Madhavi Devi, JJ. For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CA For Respondent: Smt Susan Thomas Jose, JCIT ORDER Per: N K Saini: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - I, Bangalore dated 07.10.2010. 2. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. The order of the authorities below in so far as levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is bad in law in as much as, the learned AO has neither reached any satisfaction nor has such sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case in brief are that the assessee is a manufacturer and exporter of ready made garments. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.11.205 declaring a loss of Rs.1,99,15,080/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.12.2007 and added the following disallowances : Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Rs.37,066/- and Disallowance u/s 68(a)(ia) - Rs.2,36,59,510/- 5. The AO determined the loss at Rs.37,81,496/- and set off of brought forward loss. The income assessed is Nil. For the above additions, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act separately and levied the penalty of Rs.84,87,489/-. 6. Being aggrieved, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered. 7. The assessee submitted to the learned CIT(A) that the levy of penalty was not proper because neither concealment had been established nor it was a case of filing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing in para 6 of the impugned order as under : So far as to issue of levy of penalty is concerned too I see no merit in the argument that the AO has failed to establish the concealment. The AO has made addition of Rs.2,36,59,510/- u/s 68 of I.T Act which speaks of unexplained credit. The AO has called for confirmation letters. It has not been provided. Instead of shifting the burden by providin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions of the assessee. He simply stated that he did not see any merit in the arguments of the assessee that the AO had failed to establish the concealment. However, it is not mentioned in the impugned order what were the arguments put forth by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is non speaking order and devoid of reasons so, it is a cryptic order in the eyes of law and not sustainable. 12. It is well settled that the order/judgment unsupported by reason is not a judgment in the eyes of law. It is also true that the reasons are the link between the material on record and the conclusion thereafter by the Court/Appellate authority. In our view the Ld. CIT(A) should have properl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. The Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT V Palwal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 153 has held as under: "Every judicial/quasi judicial body / authority must pass a reasoned order which should reflect the application of mind of the concerned authority to the issues / points raised before it. The requirement of recording reasons is an important safeguard to ensure observance of the rule of law. It introduces clarify, checks the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant considerations and minimizes arbitrariness in the decision making process. Another reason which makes it imperative for quasi judicial authorities to give reasons is that their orders a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. 16. As we have already pointed out that in the present case, the ld. CIT(A) has not recorded any reason in support of his decision, therefore, the failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and the present case requires readjudication at the level of Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, considering the facts of the present case, are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is a non-speaking order in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to pass a well-reasoned and speaking order, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
