High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Frontier Distributors vs. CIT
Section 254(1)
Asst. Year 1994-95
R.V. Raveendran, C.J. & Shantanu Kemkar, J.
MA (IT) Nos. 11 & 12 of 2005
23rd February, 2005
Counsel Appeared
A.P. Shrivastava, for the Appellant : Rohit Arya, for the Respondent
ORDER
R.V. Raveendran, C.J. :
These appeals under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short), are filed against the common order dt. 2nd Sept., 2004 passed by the Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in ITA No. 108/Jbp/2001 and ITA No. 91/Jbp/2001, respectively relating to asst. yr. 1994-95. The appeals have been admitted as the following common question of law arises for consideration in both the appeals :
“Whether the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the CIT(A) without assigning any reason ?”
The two appeals before the Tribunal were filed by the Revenue against the orders dt. 5th Feb., 2001 and 31st Jan., 2001, of CIT(A), Jabalpur, cancelling the penalty levied under s. 271B of the Act. On going through the order of the Tribunal, we find that paras 1 to 7 refer to the facts. Paras 8 and 10 refer to the arguments of the Departmental Representative. Para 9 refers to the arguments of the assessee. Thereafter, the appeals have been allowed by paras 11 and 12 extracted below : “11. After hearing arguments of learned Authorised Representatives of both the parties, I am of the view that there is no bona fide of the assessee. Circular is not applicable and no mitigating circumstances are there. In these circumstances, the order of the AO is upheld and the order of the CIT(A) is set aside.
12. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.” No other reasons are forthcoming in the order of the Tribunal for interfering with the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal has not stated as to why it finds that there were no bona fides on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal has not stated why the Circular/Instructions relied on by the assessee (No. 1979, dt. 27th March, 2000, No. 6 of 2003, dt. 17th July, 2003 and No. 5 of 2004, dt. 27th May, 2004) were not applicable. It has not considered the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bhagwan Cloth Stores (2003) 181 CTR (MP) 315 relied on by the assessee. It is not in dispute that several reasons have been assigned by the assessee as mitigating circumstances. While it was open to the Tribunal to reject them on merits, they could not have been rejected without dealing with them and without assigning any kind of reason therefor. Same is the position with reference to the circulars and decision of this Court. The order is, therefore, one without reasons. A judicial or quasi-judicial order, not disclosing reasons, is bad in law. Merely setting out the facts and contentions will not make the order, a reasoned order. Hence, we answer the question of law in the negative and as a consequence find that the order has to be set aside on the limited ground. Hence, we allow these appeals and set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for consideration and decision in accordance with law.
[Citation : 284 ITR 367]
