Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI ‘’B’’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY
आदेश /O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai in dated 21.03.2016 for the assessment year 2011- 2012.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
‘’2.1 Commissioner ought to have found that the assessee's claim made during in the assessment proceedings were not allowed. 2.2 Commissioner ought to have held that the interest is earned from that the fixed deposits were held only for the purpose of acquisition of fixed assets though the source is share application money and unsecured loans. 2.3 The Assistant Commissioner ought to have applied the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Karnal Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (243 ITR 2) and the decision of CIT(A) in the case of Sical Iron Ore Terminal Ltd for the asst year 2008-09. 2.4 Commissioner ought to have held that interest earned as above is not taxable under income from other sources and has to be reduced from the cost of the fixed assets’’.
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that grounds raised by the assessee against the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in taxing the interest income as income from other sources. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on perusal of the assessment order found that no addition was made in respect of interest income and accordingly he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The order of Ld.CIT(A) is very cryptic one. The Ld.CIT(A) has not considered every point of objection raised by the assessee. In our opinion the Ld.CIT(A) should have passed a well reasoned speaking order after examined the entire facts of the case. 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. The decisions shall 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. (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, 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’.
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 assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Thursday, the 15th day of June, 2017, at Chennai.