2005-VIL-04-SC-DT

Equivalent Citation: Other Citation: [2005] 273 ITR 56 (SC), 2005 AIR 1308, 2005 (1) SCR 882, 2005 (2) SCC 329

Supreme Court of India

C.A. 767 OF 2005

Date: 28.01.2005

MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS

Vs

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

BENCH

Judge(s)  : MRS. RUMA PAL., ARIJIT PASAYAT. and C. K. THAKKER.

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the court was delivered by

Arijit Pasayat J. - Leave granted.

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court (see [2003] 264 ITR 142) in appeals purported to be under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). The appeals were filed by the Revenue questioning the correctness of certain conclusions arrived at by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (in short the "Tribunal") in appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue.

The dispute relates to the assessment year 1995-96. The relevant factual details have been noted in Civil Appeal No. 4232 of 2003 and other cases (M. Janardhana Rao v. Joint CIT [2005] 273 ITR 50) etc., etc.) disposed of today, and are not repeated here. The assessee was described as A.O.P.-3 by the revenue authorities in the concerned assessment proceedings.

Questioning the correctness of certain conclusions by the Tribunal, the Revenue had preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court has held that the Tribunal's views in respect of questions Nos. (iii), (v) and (vii) as formulated were not in order, and accordingly allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue in part. The basic issues which form the core dispute have been dealt with in the appeals filed by the assessees and disposed of, as noted supra, today.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conclusions of the High Court have been arrived at without any discussion and the reasons have not been indicated as to why the seal of approval was being put on the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue supported the judgment of the High Court. According to him, when the views of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority were being affirmed, there was no need to record reasons separately.

So far as the issues covered by the judgment in C.A. No. 4232 of 2003 etc., etc., M. Janardhana Rao v. Joint CIT [2005] 273 ITR 50 as noted above, are concerned, the order shall cover these appeals also.

In addition, questions Nos. (iii), (v) and (vii) as noted in the High Court's judgment are concerned, need to be adjudicated afresh. It is true in an order of affirmation, repetition of the reasons elaborately may not be necessary. But even then the arguments advanced, points urged have to be dealt with. Reasons for affirmation have to be indicated, though in appropriate cases they may be briefly stated.

Recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure. Reasons are the harbinger between the mind of the maker of the decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at. They substitute subjectivity with objectivity. As observed in Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974] ICR 120 failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.

In the aforesaid background, we remit the matter to High Court to consider questions Nos. (iii), (v) and (vii) afresh along with other matters covered by the judgment in C. A. No. 4232 of 2003 etc., etc. (M. Janardhana Rao v. Joint CIT [2005] 273 ITR 50) disposed of today.

Appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.