The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Ms. Jamuna Bai

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 28 / 2008 Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai ----Appellant Versus M/S Vinayak Wines Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 25/01/2017

By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Department. This Court on 14.7. 2008 observed as under:- “Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that connected appeal involving similar and identical dispute has also been admitted by this Court. The

appeal

accordingly admitted.” This Court has not framed any substantial question of law however the questions framed by counsel for the appellant reads as under: “(i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT and CIT(A) were justified in law in restricting the additions without assigning any reasons when the invoking of the provisions of Section 145 of the Act has been upheld?

(2 of 3) [ITA-28/2008] (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has not acted perversely in reducing and restricting the trading additions without assigining any reasons and making estimation over estimation? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT and CIT(A) has not acted perversely in reducing and restricting the trading additions which were based upon the proper inquiry and after considering the explanation of the assessee and invoking the provisions of Section 145 of the Act?”

Counsel for the appellant contended that the identical issue on which the present appeal was admitted is covered by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 117/2004 decided on 21.01.2014 wherein the Court has considered the issue and held as under:- “It is no doubt true that in an order of affirmation, repetition of the reasons elaborately may not be necessary but even then the arguments advanced/points urged deserves to be dealt with. Reasons for affirmation have to be indicated, though in appropriate cases they may be briefly stated. Recording of reasons is part of fair procedure and reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at and they always substitute subjectivity with objectivity and as observed in Alexander Machiniery (Dudley) Ltd. Crabtree, 1974 L.C.R. 120, failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice and this is what was also abserved by the Apex Court in 2005 (2) SC 329 Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. CIT & Anr. 45. We find the judgments of the ITAT being the stereo typed, nonspeaking, unreasoned, arbitrary and whimsical, and we have no option DB ITA- 117/2004 & connected cases as per Schedule-A appended 29 except to remand the matter back to the ITAT to re-visit the issue afresh de- novo in accordance with the guidelines, referred to herein above and as summarized herein above. 46. Resultantly, in our considered view, all the impugned orders passed by the ITAT, wherein appeals

(3 of 3) [ITA-28/2008] (Schedule-A) have been filed either by the revenue or by the assessees cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed & set aside to be decided afresh and de-novo in accordance with law. The Cross Objection No.100/2011 filed in DB ITA No.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.

In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour of the Department. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal in view of the decision referred hereinabove. Consequently, the appeal stands disposed of. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. /bm gandhi 46