9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are answered accordingly. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 21.11.2013, Annexure A.3 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide it afresh after hearing learned counsel for the parties in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - ITA No.173 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income was filed on 27.10.2007 in the status of company showing an income of ₹ 12,16,452/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 17.12.2008. Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed and income was determined at ₹ 63,94,832/- on 11.12.2009, Annexure A.1 by making following additions:- i) On account of difference in surrender amount under Section 133A amounting to ₹ 25,00,000/-. ii) On account of low GP rate amounting to ₹ 26,78,370/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 1.7.2011, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er which will meet both ends of justice. Accordingly, grounds 1(iv), 2, 7 and 8 are partly allowed. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates P. Limited and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 which statutorily requires recording of reasons and 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 anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of reasons i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nough 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 requirement to record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
