C I T vs. M/S BANNA LAI GIRDHARI SINGH AND

Judgment 31/07/2018

(2 of 6) [ITA-366/2005]

(3 of 6) [ITA-366/2005] a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice, that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.

(4 of 6) [ITA-366/2005] m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 HLR 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford MANU/UKWA/0114/2001 : 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". We have noticed following observations of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Gauthamchand Bhandari

reported

in MANU/KA/1788/2010 : (2012) 347 ITR 491, 499:-- We cannot avoid observing that of late the quality of orders that are come out from the Tribunal in exercise of its appellate power under section 256 of the Act are found to be wanting and in many respect and many a times the orders are very prefecture, even non-speaking orders and has no correlation to the fact situation that prevails in a given case. We also notice that the members of the Tribunal have developed an unhealthy habit of quoting totally unrelated judgments which are not applicable at all to the facts of the case, to pass orders not otherwise sustainable on facts or in law. We strongly deprecate such a tendency on the part of the members of the Tribunal, which is quite naturally a professional Tribunal comprised of expert members, one member from the Revenue side and another member from the accounting side, with considerable experience in their respective fields and to whom we can attribute expertise. We feel sorry that the confidence posed by the Legislature is not being justified by passing orders that are outcome from the Tribunal now-a- days. It is high time the method of recruitment to the Tribunal is also reviewed by the authority

(5 of 6) [ITA-366/2005] concerned and at least henceforth it is ensured that the members of some standing, integrity and competence are put in place as members of the Tribunal and not all and sundry. The Legislature, particularly the Union Parliament may also take note of such tendency on the part of the Tribunal and ensure for suitable legislative measure so that the purpose and the object with which such Tribunals are constituted really subserve not only the interest of aggrieved assessee but also to ensure that the Revenue's interest is not simply scarified or jeopardized by errant members. Registrar General of this court is directed to send copies of this judgment to the Law Commission of India, Secretary to Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,. Government of India, Secretary to Government, Ministry of law and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi.

(6 of 6) [ITA-366/2005] 372/2005 also stands disposed of in the above terms. We also direct the ITAT to decide all the matters expeditiously but in no case later than six months from the date parties are called upon to put their appearance before the ITAT. However, it is made clear that the ITAT may not be influenced/inhibited by any of the observations, referred to herein above and may decide independently on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the ITAT on 10/03/2014. No costs.