| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
November 25, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Where the Tribunal passed an order after more than four months from the date of hearing without dealing with propositions and case laws relied upon by the Appellant, HELD allowing the appeal that:
(i) The complaint of the assessee that the Tribunal had passed an order after 4 months delay and without recording reasons was “a serious complaint” and reflected “a disturbing state of affairs”;
(ii) It is incumbent upon the Tribunal, being the final authority of facts, to appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below and assign its own reasons as to why it disagrees with the reasons and findings of the lower authorities. The Tribunal cannot brush aside the reasons or findings recorded by the lower authorities. It must give reasons and its failure to do so renders its’ order unsustainable;
(iii) The inordinate unexplained delay in pronouncement of the impugned judgement has also rendered it vulnerable. Confidence tends to be shaken if there is excessive delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgments;
(iv) Accordingly the President of the ITAT is directed to frame and lay down guidelines on the lines laid down by the Apex Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal within the shortest reasonable time.
(v) In the meanwhile, all revisional and appellate authorities are directed to decide matters heard by them within three months from the date the case is closed for judgment.
Click here for the ITAT’s order.
See Also: Raval Tiles & Vijay Jyot (Bom).
Related Posts:
- Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) In para 3.4 of the affidavit in reply it is stated that though the Petitioner had furnished details relating to purchase and sale of shares of Mittal Securities Ltd., (now Scan Steels Ltd.,), but that did not amount to full and true disclosure of all material facts unless true and…
- Bhavya Construction Co vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The basic grievance of the Appellant is that the impugned order of the Tribunal has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. This for two reasons, one the decisions relied upon by the Tribunal of its own (not cited at the bar) in the impugned order were not…
- Anand Developers vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd in fact, assists the case of the Petitioner rather than the Respondents. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts and once all primary facts…
- Ivan Singh vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench) The crucial phrase in Section 68 of the IT Act, which provides that the sum so credited in the books and which is not sufficiently explained, may be charged to the income tax as income of the assessee of “that previous year” also lends support to the contentions of Dr.…
- Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The consequence of approved scheme of amalgamation was that amalgamating company had ceased to exist and on its ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person against whom assessment proceeding can be initiated. In said case before notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 26.9.2013,…
- Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
Recent Comments