M/S. SRI MAHALASA POWER RENTALS vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Admit on the following substantial question of law: (a) Whether, on a true and proper construction of section 254 of the Act and on the basic cannon of natural justice, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeal without considering the written submissions filed and by applying the ratio of the decisions without discussing the facts before them and comparing with the facts of the said decisions?

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us to the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal and points out that appellant had relied upon the judgment of the Income Tax Tribunal having bench at Bombay which according to him was supporting the contentions of the appellant. The learned Counsel further points out that the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the Tribunal whilst disposing of the appeal preferred by the respondent was not at all applicable to the facts of the case, as the facts therein were distinguishable to the facts in the present case. Learned Counsel has thereafter taken us to the written submissions filed before the Tribunal and points out that all such contentions were raised before the Tribunal though there is no reason or scrutiny of the material relied upon by the appellant whilst disposing of the appeal preferred by the respondent. Learned Counsel further points out that on this count alone the impugned order passed by the Tribunal stands vitiated and, as such, matter is to be remanded to the Tribunal to decide the appeal preferred by respondent afresh. Learned Counsel has also raised contention that even on merits there were arguments which were advanced which were not at all examined by the Tribunal whilst passing the impugned order.

On the other hand, Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the appellant is not entitled for the deductions of the amounts claimed by them in terms of Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. Learned Counsel, as such, points out that the findings of the Tribunal are proper. Learned Counsel, however, does not dispute that all the contentions which were raised by the appellant in their written submission have not been specifically dealt by the Tribunal whilst disposing of the appeal.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record and taking note of the contentions of both the Counsel, we find that the Tribunal whilst disposing of the appeal ITA No.54/PNJ/2013 preferred by the respondent by order dated 28/03/2014 has not given specific reasons as to why the contentions which were raised by the appellant in their written submissions have not been accepted. The Tribunal being the last fact finding authority is expected to scrutinize all the contentions raised and give specific finding with that regard. Having failed to do so, we find that in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by 4 the Tribunal by not examining the questions on merits. All the contentions on merits of both the counsel are kept open.

In view of the above, we passed the following order: O R D E R (i) The impugned order dated 28/03/2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.54/PNJ/2013 is quashed and set aside. (ii) ITA No.54/PNJ/2013 is restored to the file of the Tribunal. (iii) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the said appeal afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (iv) All contentions of both the parties on merits are left open. (v) Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. U.V. BAKRE, J. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-