| 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:
- Usha Exports vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The reasons also refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.N.K.Proteins Ltd. (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT v. DCIT ). Even this decision was before the Assessing Officer in the proceeding pursuant to first reopening notice. The Petitioner, along with its objections, placed explanatory note as to how the…
- 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…
- 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…
- 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…
- Kalpana Ashwin Shah vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The decision of the authorities is in consonance with the department's circulars. We do not find any extra ordinary reasons for imposing condition lighter than one which has been imposed by the said authorities. The contention of the Petitioner that he had received no consideration at the time of transfer…
- 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.…
Recent Comments