9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2)(x) of the Act. Resulting in no clarity as to what finding is to be challenged in appeal against the said orders. Such orders are violative of the principles of natural justice embodied in the maxim audi alteram partem which demand justice not only to be done but also appear to be done. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had submitted to the AO that the said two plots of land were not purchased in the impugned year but were purchased in the year 2008 and 2010, i.e. much prior to the impugned order before us i.e. Asst.Year 2020-21. The assessee had pointed out that in the said years the assessee had entered into an agreement to sell and had paid entire amount of consideration to the seller, but the sale deed was registered in the impugned year. The assessee had also pointed out that the aforementioned facts of the assessee entering into an agreement to sell in the year 2008 and 2010, and paying entire consideration in those years, found mention in the registered sale deed. The assessee also pointed out that the possession of the said two pieces of land had also being taken by the assessee in those years itself, which fact also found mention both in the agreement to sell and even the registered sale deed. Copies of all the documents were placed before the AO. Response of the assessee to the show cause notice of the AO is reproduced at para 9.1 of the order as under: "Vide para-10 of the above referred letter, your goodself has show caused that why value of stamp duty of property Rs. 63,25, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely rejected the same without giving any reasons for doing so, and simply stated that the explanation of the assessee was carefully considered and not accepted. His cryptic non-reasoned finding in this regard are recorded at para 9.2 of his order as under: "9.2. In the written explanation, the assessee stated that he has taken possession of the two lands on 27.03.2008 and 10.11.2010 total amount to Rs. 2,05,000/-, by virtue of agreement of sale. Incompliance to the above show cause notice two agreements of sale are uploaded in Annexure A and B. The assessee registered his two lands on 17.09.2019 in the office of the SUB REGISTRAR AHMEDABAD-13 (CITY-AGRI). In view of the above discussion the submission/explanation of the assessee is carefully considered and not accepted." 7. As is evident from the above, despite assesses submissions as above, the AO simply rejected the same without assigning any reasons and without even mentioning a word on the assesses submissions. He simply took note of the fact that the registration of sale deed of the said two properties took place in impugned year and then went on to make addition of the difference between the stamp value and actual conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or after 01.04.2017. I have gone through the submissions of the appellant and noticed that the appellant failed to furnish the reason why second sale deed in the year 2019 as taken place. It is also not understandable that why he is considering the purchase made in 2008 and 2010 as purchase for this purpose. I find that the appellant either before the A.O. or during appellant proceedings has not able to substantiate his claim for not considering the purchase in the year 2019.1 uphold the addition made by the A.O. and dismiss the ground of the appellant." 9. Clearly the ld.CIT(A)'s order appears to have been passed without any application of mind at all. Without finding any infirmity in the assesses submissions , the Ld.CIT(A) appears to be luking for reasons to dismiss assesses appeal when he states that the assessee had given no reason why the sale deed was registered in 2019. This when neither the AO nor the ld.CIT(A) ever asked the assessee the reason why the registration took place after so many years. 10. As for his finding that he was unable to understand why the assessee was considering the purchases to have been made in 2008 and 2010, this simply demonstrates the comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le audi alteram partem struck down the order of the Commissioner noting failure to record reasons in his order,. The Hon'ble High Court took note of several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court while arriving at this finding, which are cited in the order as under: i) Desai (NM) Vs. Testeels Ltd., CA No.245 of 1970 (SC) ii) Maneka Gandhi (Smt.) Vs. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597; iii) Siemens Engg. And Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. Vs. UOI, AIR 1976 SC 1785 iv) UOI Vs. Capoor (ML), (1974) AIR 1974 SC 87; v) Woolcombers of India Ltd. Vs. Woolcombers Workers Union (1973) AIR 1973 SC 2758 13. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Nidhi Ltd. vs UOI, 92 ITR 1, while dealing with non-speaking order passed by the CBDT in the case of an assessee seeking approval as investment trust company and also seeking exemption from payment of super tax under Notification issued by the CBDT, held that the CBDT is bound to pass a speaking order and give reasons in support of its finding that the petitioner was not entitled to exemption. Noting that no reasons were given by the CBDT while doing so, the Hon'ble High Court noted that the order of the Board left the position vague and did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority exercises judicial functions, is obvious; when judicial power is exercised by an authority normally performing executive or administrative functions, this court would require to be satisfied that the decision has been reached after due consideration of the merits of the dispute, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations of policy or expediency; the court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds : one, that the party aggrieved, in a proceeding before the High Court or this court, has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous; the other, that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power." 7. In this case, the Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order of the Central Government passed upon revision. 8. Mr. Aiyar, counsel for the respondents, has cited a single Bench authority of this court in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, (Civil Writ Petition No. 996 of 1971 decided on 11th February, 1972), This was a case where the party had asked the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the knowledge and, for that matter, conjectures of the petitioner in respect of the reasons, is no substitute for the formal incorporation of the reasons in the impugned order. The petitioner may be entirely mistaken in its assessment of the reasons and nobody will hear (sic) it to say what the reasons were which weighed with the statutory authorities in passing the order. See the observations in Associated Tubewells Ltd. v. R.B. Gujarmal Modi, . As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment, incorporation of the reasons is necessary to demonstrate that the authority has considered the matter according to law and that its order may be subjected to judicial review. The contention of Mr. Aiyar fails." 14. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anusayaben A. Doshi and Others, 256 ITR 685 (Bom) reiterated this proposition of non- speaking order being violative of principle of natural justice, and therefore, being unsustainable in law. Hon'ble High Court held that order or the judgment should be self-explanatory giving reasons that are essential element of administration of justice. Reasons , it held, was as an indispensable part of a sound system of judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
