Director Of Income Tax v. Seaworld Shipping And Logistics Pvt. Ltd.....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/720/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 720 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/- andHONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Sd/- ================================================================1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NOto see the judgment ?2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?NO3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of NOthe judgment ?4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of NOlaw as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?NO ================================================================ DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus SEAWORLD SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR MANISH BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1MS HINA DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH andHONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 22/10/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.00.Present Tax Appeal has been preferred by the appellant – revenue against the Judgement and Order dated 12/4/2013 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot in ITA No.98/Rjt/2012 with respect to AY 2010-2011 by which the learned tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue solely on the ground that the departmental representative when asked could not point out any infirmities in the order of the learned CIT(A). 2.00.Mr.Manish Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – revenue has submitted that the learned tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue solely on the ground that the departmental representative when asked could not point out any infirmities in the order of the learned CIT(A). It is submitted that there is no independent application of mind by the learned tribunal while dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue and the learned tribunal has not expressed any opinion on merits and/or with respect to legality and validity of the order passed by the learned CIT(A). It is submitted that as such it was incumbent on the part of the tribunal to give its own independent finding with respect to the order passed by the learned CIT(A). It is submitted that, therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned tribunal to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law and on merits by directing the learned tribunal to pass a speaking order with respect to order passed by the learned CIT(A) impugned before it. 3.00.Ms.Heena Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – assessee is not in a position to dispute the above. She is not in a position to point out from the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned tribunal that the learned tribunal has dealt with the appeal on merits and has considered the legality and validity of the order passed by the CIT(A). alone, the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned tribunal to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law and on merits by directing the learned tribunal to pass a speaking order with respect to order passed by the learned CIT(A) impugned before it. 3.00.Ms.Heena Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – assessee is not in a position to dispute the above. She is not in a position to point out from the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned tribunal that the learned tribunal has dealt with the appeal on merits and has considered the legality and validity of the order passed by the CIT(A). 4.00.Having heard Mr.Manish Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms.Heena Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue and on perusal of the impugned judgement and order passed by the tribunal, it appears that the learned tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue solely on the ground that the departmental representative when asked could not point out any infirmities in the order of the learned CIT(A). It appears that the learned tribunal has not given its own independent finding with respect to the order passed by the CIT(A) impugned before it. It appears that there is no independent application of mind by the learned tribunal with respect to the order passed by the CIT(A) impugned in the appeal before it. The impugned order passed by the tribunal is absolutely a non-speaking order with respect to legality and validity of the order passed by the CIT(A) impugned in the appeal before it. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the ITAT cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.00.In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and on the aforesaid ground alone, present appeal is allowed and the impugned the Judgement and Order dated 12/4/2013 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot in ITA No.98/Rjt/2012 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to file of learned tribunal. The learned tribunal is hereby directed to consider, decide and dispose of the appeal preferred by the revenue in accordance with law and on merits and consider the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and pass a speaking order with respect to the order passed by the learned CIT(A) impugned in the appeal before it. Rafik Sd/- (M.R.SHAH, J.) Sd/- (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.)