High Court Of Delhi
Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. vs. CIT
Section 254(1)
Asst. Year 1993-94
B.C. Patel, C.J. & Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
IT Appeal No. 360 of 2002 and CM No. 463 of 2004
9th November,2004
Counsel Appeared
C.S. Aggarwal with Prakash Jha, for the Petitioner : R.D. Jolly, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
B.C. Patel, C.J. :
This appeal is filed under s. 260A(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dt. 23rd Aug., 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in ITA No. 6331/Del/1996 for asst. yr. 1993-94.
2. The questions framed by the Court are as under :
“1. Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to reverse the decision of the CIT(A) and hold that the assessee had suppressed its production of tin containers ?
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs. 1,74,58,165 representing alleged unaccounted sales ?”
3. Answer to question No. 2 would be dependent on the answer to question No. 1.
4. The order made by the CIT(A) which is produced at Annex. 4 in appeal No. 8/1996-97 decided on 30th Sept.,1996 is in detail. We have also perused the order made by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal, in para 13, while reversing the order made by the CIT(A), observed as under :
“13. We have examined the rival submissions. The AO has methodically pointed out flaws in the assessee’s accounts as a result of the search in which production records were seized. In our opinion, the assessee has not been able to answer satisfactorily to any of the queries raised by the AO. We are, therefore, in agreement with the AO that this is a fit case for rejection of account books and the provisions of s. 145(2) are clearly applicable to the facts of the case. The order of CIT(A) is set aside and the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,74,58,165 is upheld by us. The appeal of the Department succeeds on the first ground.”
5. It is true that the Tribunal has referred to the submissions made by the counsel as well as the Departmental Representative. However, while reversing the order made by the CIT(A) no reasons have been given by the Tribunal. If a detailed reasoned order is made by the appellate officer and the Tribunal is in agreement therewith, then one may say that no detailed discussions are required but, when the Tribunal is reversing the order made by the appellate officer, then detailed reasons are required to be given particularly when the decision of the Tribunal is considered to be final on facts.
6. In order to ensure that there may not be prejudice to either side, we are not discussing the merits of the case as there is consensus that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. It is in view of this that we are allowing this appeal with the direction to the Tribunal to hear the matter afresh in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. The questions are not required to be answered in view of the aforesaid course of action.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the parties state that matter may be fixed before the Tribunal for appearance of the counsel on 27th Dec., 2004. Accordingly, the counsel for the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 27th Dec., 2004.
[Citation : 275 ITR 43]
