9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, claiming the substantial questions of law as mentioned in para 3 of the appeal. 2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal as mentioned therein are that the assessee filed his return of income on 28.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,21,596/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 31.3.2006 and the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the party received donation of Rs. 3,90,75,102/- against which the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs. 3,81,33,355/-. The assessee had claimed the excess of the two as an exemption of income under Section 13A of the Act. The assessment was completed at a total income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See 1878-97 Vol. 4 Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the report). 18. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the 'inscrutable face of a Sphinx'. 19 to 50 XX XX XX 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 anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a quasi-judicial authority 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- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
