D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. M/ S Rajaram & Party

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.9/ 2008Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur vs.M/ s Rajaram & Party Date of Judgment : 27.01.2015 HON'BLE THE ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. SUNI L AMBW ANIHON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE PRAKASH GUPTA Mr. R.B.Mathur, counsel for appellant. 1.We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2.The connected matters raising the same substantialquestion of law, namely, “whether it is implicit under theprovisions of section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to make necessary additions on rejection of accounts when thereis no material to support that assessee has earned higherincome and under these circumstances the adhoc additionswere justified”, came to be decided on 21.01.2014 in CI T vs.Ram Sin gh [ ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 6 3 I TR 4 7 1 ( Raj .) ] .3.This Court, considering the question of law raised in allthe connected matters, held as follows: “3 7 . On perusal of the above, orders it as apparentand patent that the ITAT has not even recorded thearguments advanced by the parties nor has it comeout with the discernible basis as to why adhoc statedaddition has been sustained. There is no recording offacts and there is no discussion about any comparablecases or the past history or working for the adhocaddition and deletion. There is no reason assigned asto why Tribunal does not agree with the findingrecorded by AO or CIT(A). We fail to understand as to how Tribunal has arrived to a conclusion in confirming,enhancing, reducing or deleting the estimation ofincome arrived at by CIT(A) & AO. The Tribunal issupposed to set out reasons in support of its decisionby narrating full facts and discussing the issues indetail so that the person aggrieved knows why it hascome to a particular conclusion. 4 3 . It is no doubt true that in an order of affirmation,repetition of the reasons elaborately may not benecessarybuteventhenthe argumentsadvanced/ points urged deserves to be dealt with.Reasons for affirmation have to be indicated, thoughin appropriate cases they may be briefly stated.Recording of reasons is part of fair procedure andreasons are harbinger between the mind of the makerof the decision in the controversy and the decision orconclusion arrived at and they always substitutesubjectivity with objectivity and as observed inAlexander Machiniery (Dudley) Ltd. Crabtree, 1974L.C.R. 120, failure to give reasons amounts to denialof justice and this is what was also observed by theApex Court in MANU/ SC/ 0069/ 2005 : 2005 (2) SC329 Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT & Anr. 4 4 .We find the judgments of the ITAT being thestereo typed, non-speaking, unreasoned, arbitrary andwhimsical, and we have no option except to remandthe matter back to the ITAT to re-visit the issue afreshde-novo in accordance with the guidelines, referred toherein above and as summarized herein above.Resultantly, in our considered view, all the impugnedorders passed by the ITAT, wherein appeals(Schedule-A) have been filed either by the revenue orby the assessees cannot be sustained in the eyes oflaw and are hereby quashed & set aside to be decidedafresh and de-novo in accordance with law. The CrossObjection No. 100/ 2011 filed in DB ITA No. 372/ 2005also stands disposed of in the above terms. We alsodirect the ITAT to decide all the matters expeditiouslybut in no case later than six months from the dateparties are called upon to put their appearance beforethe ITAT. However, it is made clear that the ITAT maynot be influenced/ inhibited by any of the observations,referred to herein above and may decideindependently on merits in accordance with law.Parties are directed to appear before the ITAT on10/ 03/ 2014. No costs.” 4.The facts and circumstances and the questions of law on 4.The facts and circumstances and the questions of law on such facts in this income tax appeal, are the same except the amounts of adhoc additions. 5.We do not find any good ground, to take a different view in the matter. 6.The question of law is decided in favour of the assesseeand against the Revenue. The matter is remanded to the ITATto decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. 7.In view of the aforesaid, the Appeal is disposed of. ( PRAKASH GUPTA) ,J. ( SUNI L AMBW ANI ) ,ACTI NG C.J. Mohit M/ 5 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order beingemailed. Mohit Tak, P.A.