9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at right to reasons is an indispensable part of sound judicial system - in the case of Certified Area Committee vs. Additional Director, Consolidation reported in [2001 (5) TMI 921 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held by Hon’ble Apex court that “The reasons are the flesh and blood of Judicial adjudication and such reasons must be shown in the orders which are liable to be challenged in the Superior Court”. - matter remanded back for reconsideration and passing speaking order. - TAX APPEAL NO. 291 of 2013 With TAX APPEAL NO. 669 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2013 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MS SONIA GOKANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR MANAV A MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR TEJ SHAH, ADVOCATE JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] As both these tax appeals are against the same judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ITAT ) and as such they are cross appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. [1.1] Tax Appeal No.291/2013 has been preferred by the Revenue challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the learned ITAT in Appeal being ITA No.1189 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.61,44,189/sustained by the CIT(A) and consequently dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order both the revenue as well as the assessee have preferred the present appeals. [3.0] A common grievance made by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and even the learned counsel appearing for the assessee is that the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT is a nonreasoned and nonspeaking order. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revenue as well as assessee that as such no reasons have been assigned by the ITAT in modifying the order passed by the CIT(A) and while sustaining the addition of Rs.30 lac. It is submitted that as such while passing the impugned judgment and order the ITAT has not assigned any reasons whatsoever. It is submitted that being a quasi judidical / judicial authority, the ITAT was supposed to assign atleast some reasons either in support of addition of Rs.30 lac or not confirming either the order of the AO or the order passed by the CIT(A). Under the circumstances, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned common judgment and orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/requires to be sustained to meet the end of justice . Thus, as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT is absolutely a non-reasoned and nonspeaking order. [5.0] While taking up tax appeals, we have come across similar nonspeaking and non-reasoned orders passed by the ITAT and passing the order on estimate basis by deleting and/or making addition by observing that to meet with the ends of justice . It cannot be disputed that ITAT, while deciding the appeals, is required to pass the order judiciously and it should reflect that the Tribunal has applied the mind on a particular issue. ITAT is a judicial authority and it should exercise the powers under section 254 of the Act and as per subsection (4) of section 254 save as provided in section 256 or section 260A, orders passed by the appellate tribunal on appeal shall be final. Therefore, a great care should be taken by the ITAT while exercising the powers under section 254 of the Act and while deciding the appeals in exercise of powers under section 254 of the Act. It is true that subsection (1) of section 254 provides that the appellate tribunal may pass such orders as it thinks fit, but that does not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected." 46. The emphasis on recording reason is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other words, a speaking out, the inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance. In the case of Board of Trustees of Martyrs Memorial Trust vs. Union of India reported in (2012)10 SCC 734, in para 22, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
