9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OURT OF INDIA]. Accordingly matter remanded to the Central Board of Direct Taxes to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order. - Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand. - C. W. P. No. 3982 of 2012 (O & M) - - - Dated:- 10-3-2014 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA, JJ. For the Appellant : Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate For the Respondent : Denesh Goyal, Advocate JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal J.- Challenge in this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated July 27, 2009, annexure P-6 passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)-respondent No. 2 rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner, since the information with regard to income from other sources was not ready, the return could not be filed up to the due date, i.e., October 31, 2006. There was a delay in filing the return and the same was filed on January 9, 2007. Since the claim under section 80-IB of the Act had been made in the return and the return was late as provided under section 139 of the Act, a show-cause notice was issued by the Department to the petitioner on November 19, 2008. The assessment was finalised, vide order dated January 10, 2008, annexure P.2 and the claim under section 80-IB of the Act was disallowed by holding that the return had not been filed within the stipulated period as provided under section 80AC read with section 139 of the Act. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued for condonation of delay. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the order of the Board is legally untenable. 6. The hon'ble apex court in Kranti Associates P. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan [2010] 9 SCC 496 while dealing with the requirement of passing a reasoned order by an authority whether administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial, had laid down as under : 51. Summarizing the above discussion, this court holds : (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect any one pre judicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). (n) Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
