Delhi H.C : Whether the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the grounds raised by the Revenue in appeal without recording reasons for such rejection ?

High Court Of Delhi

Director Of Income Tax (Exempt) vs. UMA Maheshwar Parmarthtrust

Section 254(1)

Asst. Year 1995-96

Madan B. Lokur & V.B. Gupta, JJ.

IT Appeal No. 230 of 2004

5th March, 2007

Counsel Appeared :

R.D. Jolly, for the Appellant : C.S. Aggarwal with Prakash Kumar, for the Respondent

ORDER

By the court :

The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 13th Feb., 2003 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench “F”, New Delhi, in ITA No. 4071/Del/1998 relevant for the asst. yr. 1995-96.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we admit the appeal and frame the following substantial question of law for our consideration :

“Whether the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the grounds raised by the Revenue in appeal without recording reasons for such rejection ?”

Since the question is short one, we dispense with the filing of paper books.

3. We find from a perusal of the impugned order that the Tribunal has given absolutely no reason for rejecting ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue except to say that no interference is called for in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. This is what the Tribunal has to say :

“Having heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on our files and taken into consideration the decision relied upon before us, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. It is seen that in the specific facts of the case, the decision of the jurisdictional High Court fortifies the case of the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is rejected.”

4. Similarly, while rejecting ground No. 2, the Tribunal has again given no reason and has rejected the contention in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is what the Tribunal has to say while rejecting ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue :

“Having heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on our files and taken into consideration the various pages of the paper book to which our attention was invited, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. Being satisfied by the reasons recorded in the impugned order, ground No. 2 is rejected.”

It is well-settled law that while disposing of an appeal, the appellate authority must record reasons for its decision. The appellate authority has examined the record of the case and has taken a view without giving any reason. This does not serve the cause of justice.

With regard to ground No. 1 urged by the Revenue, reliance was placed by the assessee on Director of IT (Exemption) vs. Agrin Charan Foundation (2002) 172 CTR (Del) 95 : (2002) 253 ITR 593 (Del). The decision has not been considered by the Tribunal. It has merely stated that on the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. Similarly, while dealing with ground No. 2, the Tribunal has recorded the submissions of the Revenue as well as the assessee and has stated that having gone through the various pages of the paper book, no interference is called for. It is true that the Tribunal has expressed satisfaction with the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) but the Revenue was aggrieved by that order. The Tribunal ought to give some reason why the grievance of the Revenue is not justified. If this is not done, the Revenue will not know why its appeal has been dismissed. Since the Tribunal has given no reason for dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, we answer the substantial question of law in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Tribunal should give its reasons for whatever conclusion it arrives at on the merits of the case.

The appeal is disposed of.

[Citation : 292 ITR 352]

Malcare WordPress Security