Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai v. M/S Veerji Iqbal And Party

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 387 / 2008 Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai ----Appellant Versus M/S Veerji Iqbal And Party ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHURJudgment 25/01/2017 By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal preferred by the Department. This Court on 06.11.2008 while admitting the appeal framedthe following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case the ITAT and CIT(A) were justifed inlaw in restricting the additions without assigningany reasons when the invoking of the provisionsof Section 145 of the Act has been upheld?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT has not acted perversely inreducing and restricting the trading additionswithout assigning any reasons and makingestimation over estimation?” Counsel for the appellant contended that the identical issueon which the present appeal was admitted is covered by thedecision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 117/2004 decided on 21.01.2014 wherein the Court has considered the issue andheld as under:- “It is no doubt true that in an order ofaffirmation, repetition of the reasonselaborately may not be necessary but eventhen the arguments advanced/points urgeddeserves to be dealt with. Reasons foraffirmation have to be indicated, though inappropriate cases they may be briefly stated.Recording of reasons is part of fair procedureand reasons are harbinger between the mind ofthe maker of the decision in the controversyand the decision or conclusion arrived at andthey always substitute subjectivity withobjectivity and as observed in AlexanderMachiniery (Dudley) Ltd. Crabtree, 1974 L.C.R.120, failure to give reasons amounts to denialof justice and this is what was also abserved bythe Apex Court in 2005 (2) SC 329 MangaloreGanesh Beedi Works Vs. CIT & Anr. 45. We findthe judgments of the ITAT being the stereotyped, nonspeaking, unreasoned, arbitrary andwhimsical, and we have no option DB ITA-117/2004 & connected cases as per Schedule-Aappended 29 except to remand the matterback to the ITAT to re-visit the issue afresh de-novo in accordance with the guidelines,referred to herein above and as summarizedherein above. 46. Resultantly, in ourconsidered view, all the impugned orderspassed by the ITAT, wherein appeals(Schedule-A) have been filed either by therevenue or by the assessees cannot besustained in the eyes of law and are herebyquashed & set aside to be decided afresh andde-novo in accordance with law. The CrossObjection No.100/2011 filed in DB ITANo.372/2005 also stands disposed of in theabove terms. We also direct the ITAT to decideall the matters expeditiously but in no caselater than six months from the date parties arecalled upon to put their appearance before theITAT. However, it is made clear that the ITATmay not be influenced/inhibited by any of theobservations, referred to herein above and maydecide independently on merits in accordancewith law. In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour of the Department. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal in view of the decision referred hereinabove. Consequently, the appeal stands disposed of. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. /bm gandhi 68