9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartmental Representative submitted that although it was true that a large number of decisions on which the assessee relied were against the revenue, yet, in view of the change in concept of law the approach to the provisions of section 32A, section 80HHA and section 80-I had undergone a change after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N C Budharaja Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412/70 Taxman 312. He had strongly relied on the order of the Assessing Officer who had rejected the claim of the assessee while the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued in support of his claim. The Tribunal which included judicial member (Shri T.A. Bukte) who was the Author of one of the decisions of the Tribunal on which the ld. counsel for the assessee had very strongly relied, did not agree with the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee and after detailed reasonings and considering the interpretations, given to the word like "manufacture and production" by the Supreme Court and reproduced by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, came to the conclusion that the claim of the assessee was not justified and agreed with the view taken by the Assessing Officer to the effect that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Shri Mathuria practising Advocate for the assessee and the submissions of the assessee in its miscellaneous application are patently wrong and hence, they are rejected. 4. At this stage we may also mention that Mr. Dastur very vehemently argued that it was wrong on the part of the Departmental Representative to have affirmed in the counter affidavit that he had cited the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods (Goa) [1995] 213 ITR 851/79 Taxman 381 (Bom.) and that it was a wrong affirmation because that part of the ITR in which this case was reported is dated 19-6-1995 whereas hearing before the Tribunal was on 20-6-1995 and hence, this particular case could not have been cited before the Tribunal on 20-6-1995. We have considered this objection but we may point out that the Tribunal has not mentioned in its order that this case was cited by the ld. Departmental Representative which appears to be the impression of the assessee and its learned counsel. In fact, para 5 of the Tribunal's order starts with the sentence-- " We have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both the sides, the orders of the authorities below as well as the material on record which includes citations a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court if it is referred to in the order of the Tribunal, would be a mistake apparent from record which the Tribunal is bound to rectify. As already mentioned we are not inclined to subscribe to this view. In our opinion, the law requires that the Tribunal shall hear both the parties in an appeal and shall thereafter "pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit." No doubt, such an order has to be a speaking order and the decision of the Tribunal has to be supported with some reasoning, which has to be reasoning of the Tribunal based on material on record, arguments advanced before it and also its own knowledge and understanding of law. We feel that if the submissions of Mr. Mathuria and Mr. Dastur are accepted, it may lead to a situation where the ld. counsel of an assessee may argue that the entire business income of an assessee is not taxable and if the ld. counsel for the assessee later on filed an affidavit that the Departmental Representative had not objected to such a statement, any order of the Tribunal holding that the business income of the assessee is taxable, would be a mistake apparent from record which the Tribunal shall have to rectify and allow the appeal of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been given to the assessee's counsel or should now be given has no force because as mentioned earlier, the ld. Departmental Representative had relied and cited this case in his arguments which is noted in our log book and had submitted that although a large number of Tribunal and some High Court decisions were in favour of the assessee, they were no longer good law after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Budharaja Co. In our opinion, it is not obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to permit citations and counter citations to go on ad infinitum by giving a fresh opportunity to the opposite party after one case is cited by one side. We believe that the ld. counsel for the assessee and the ld. Departmental Representative are officers of the court and have got the duty to assist the court in reaching a correct decision. We also believe that they are both knowledgeable persons who are supposed to know law concerning the subject on which they are representing the parties and atleast are supposed to be well versed with the relevant Supreme Court decision which is cited by the either side. If at all one of them is ignorant about it, he may make a specific request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted with the notings in our log book. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee has made allegations in its miscellaneous application as well as in the affidavit that the Tribunal had not considered several decisions which are given in the paper book and other material on record is also not correct. We have already mentioned that before giving its decision the Tribunal had specifically mentioned that it had considered the arguments advanced from both the sides, the orders of the authorities below as well as the material on record which included citations and extracts from various decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts. This would make it clear that the Tribunal had consciously noted that it had considered the various decisions of Tribunals and High Courts cited on behalf of the assessee and in view of the Supreme Court decision on which the Tribunal relied while giving its decision and in view of its own reasoning which was supported with the Supreme Court and the latest Bombay High Court decisions, we do not think that it was necessary to reproduce the facts, arguments and the decision given in each of the cases cited by the assessee. The Tribunal had considered it necessary to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
