Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 157 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTAllowability of transportation expenses - allowable business expenses u/s 37(1) - Disallowance u/s 40A(3) as payments made to transporters on a particular day exceeds ₹ 20,000/- - ITAT directed deletion of additions made by Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has neither assigned any reasons nor has disclosed any basis for directing deletion of additions made by the assessing authority as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) except confirming the addition of ₹ 31 Lakhs made by the assessing authority. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons on the issues raised before it and has not given any reasons in support of its conclusion. The order passed by the Tribunal is cryptic and suffers from the vice of non application of mind. Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowance was not justified even though the same was contrary to Section 40a(ia)? - Second substantial question of law framed by a bench of this court is no longer respondent integra and is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Exports Company [2018 (5) TMI 356 - SUPREME COURT] and the same does not require any adjudication. Therefore, the same is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Though we are conscious of the legal principle that finality has to be attached to all legal proceedings, but in the peculiar facts of the case since, factual adjudication is required so far as substantial question of law Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, which has not been done by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is the final fact finding authority, we are left with no option but to set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal insofar as it pertains to substantial questions of law No.1 and 3 and remit the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh on issues covered by substantial question of law Nos.1 and 3. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to answer the substantial questions of law No.1 and 3.
|