9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not warrant our affirmation. In our opinion, the Tribunal was duty bound to record tangible and cogent reasons for upsetting well reasoned orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). – Hence order passed by Tribunal is set aside X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (for short, "the Tribunal"), accepted the plea of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalties by making the following observations: "We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case presented before us. We have also perused the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Vir Sales Corporation. The decision is direct on the point. No contrary decision was brought before us. In the instant case, a transaction was between the sister concerns. It was with a view to meet the business exigencies. It was under the bona fide belief and under the ignorance of relevant provision of law. We hope that it constitutes a valid excuse and reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B read with sections 271D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy. The requirement of recording of reasons by such authorities is an important safeguard to ensure observance of the rule of law. It introduces clarity, checks the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant considerations and minimises arbitrariness in the decision making process. Another reason which makes it imperative for the quasi-judicial authorities to give reasons is that their orders are not only subject to the right of the aggrieved persons to challenge the same by filing statutory appeal and revision but also by filing writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution. Such decisions can also be challenged by way of appeal under article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Courts have the power to issue writ of certiorari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 1976 SC 1785; (8) S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; (9) Shanti Prasad Agarwalla v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 814; (10) Krishna Swami v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1407; (11) M. L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2476. In S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court discussed the development of law on this subject in India, Australia, Canada, England and the United States of America and after making reference to a large number of judicial precedents, their Lordships culled out the following propositions: "The decisions of this court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extraneous considerations by applying pre-existing legal norms to factual situations. Now the necessity of giving reasons is an important safeguard to ensure observance of the duty to act judicially. It introduces clarity, checks the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant considerations and excludes or, at any rate, minimises arbitrariness in the decision-making process. Another reason which compels making of such an order is based on the power of judicial review which is possessed by the High Court under article 226 and the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution. These courts have the power under the said provisions to quash by certiorari a quasi-judicial order made by an administrative officer and this power of review can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
