Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy
आदेश / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore dated 29.01.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.
ITA No.1144/Mds./2014 :- 2 -:
The grievance of the Revenue in its appeal is with regard to deletion of addition made by the AO in respect of suppression of income.
The facts of the issue are that the AO had made an addition of `68,48,489/-. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), it has been explained that there is no suppression of income and reconciliation has been done between the income from patients under various health insurance schemes and the income is reflected in the Form No.26AS of the assessee. According to Ld.CIT(A), the addition made by the AO amounting to `68,48,489/- is not sustainable and is deleted. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the Revenue/Assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The main contention of ld.A.R is that the order of Ld.CIT(A) is very non-speaking and he has not recorded all the submissions of the ld.A.R. Admittedly, the order of Ld.CIT(A) is very cryptic. The Ld.CIT(A) has not passed speaking order. He has not considered all the submissions of the ld.A.R. However, the Ld.CIT(A) in a summary manner endorsed the order of the Assessing Officer without ascertaining any reasons and the order of Ld.CIT(A) cannot be sustained.
ITA No.1144/Mds./2014 :- 3 -:
4.1 In our opinion, the Ld.CIT(A) being the quasi judicial authority should have passed a reasoned order as held by Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates P.Ltd Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan [2010] 9 SCC 496 which statutorily requires recording of reasons and requirement of passing a reasoned order by an authority whether administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial, had laid down as under:-
(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 becomes as indispensable 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
ITA No.1144/Mds./2014 :- 4 -: 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 the 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. (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 Harward Law Review 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 Ruiz Torija V. Spain [1994] 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya V. University of Oxford [2001] EWCA Civ 405(CA) wherein the court referred to aricle 6 of the 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’.
ITA No.1144/Mds./2014 :- 5 -:
In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to remit the issue in dispute to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for passing a speaking order on the issues in dispute.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on 24th August, 2017, at Chennai.