Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (10) TMI 922

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of appeal before him. A mere glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the CIT(A) is cryptic and grossly violative of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice and every judicial/quasi-judicial body/authority must pass a well-reasoned order which should reflect not only application of mind by the concerned authority to the issue/points raised before it but also adjudication of the issues/grounds raised before it. The application of mind to the material facts and arguments should manifest itself in the order. As we have already observed that the impugned order suffers from lack of reasoning and is not a speaking order on the issue for which the impugned addition was made by the AO and the impugned order is not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aise any objection towards the fact and explanation offered by the assessee as a reason for delay that the challan of appeal fees was wrongly deposited on account of (400) Tax on Regular Assessment instead of (300) self assessment and later the challan was duly amended by the officer concerned and in doing so, the filing of appeal got delayed by 69 days. 4. On careful consideration of above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the delay was caused due to technical reason beyond control of the assessee. Therefore, we find it appropriate to condone the delay of 69 days, cause of which has been properly explained by the assessee and obviously, the delay cannot be attributed to the assessee. Accordingly, the application of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n considered. It is seen that the appellant did not approach this matter with clean hands since details of the impugned transactions could be known to the ld. AO only though other departmental channels. Furthermore, the claim of exemption from LTCG u/s 54F of the Act could also not be substantiated. Thus it is held that the action of ld. AO in bring to tax the appellant s share of LTCG have the sanction of law as the appellant has not been able to prove that no LTCG accrued in his hands. Also the claim of relief u/s 54F could not be substantiated. Thus it is held that the action of ld. AO in bringing to tax the appellant s share of LTCG have the sanction of law as the appellant has not been able to prove that no LTCG accrued in his hands. A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te stand. The DR fairly accepted that the CIT(A) has not given any detailed finding and conclusion on the submissions and explanation evidence submitted by the assessee during first appellate proceedings. 10. In view of above rival submissions, at the outset, we observe that the CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessee briefly by passing a cryptic order without giving any observations, findings and basis of conclusion in the impugned order. We further observe that from the observations of the CIT(A) in para 3.3 of the order as reproduced hereinabove, it is apparent that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without even analyzing the issue or recording his specific findings on the issue raised in the grounds of appeal before him. A mere g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the same is the heart and soul of the order and the same also facilitates appreciation when the order is called in question before the superior forum. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that a decision does not merely mean the conclusion but it embraces within its fold the reasons forming the basis for the conclusion drawn therein. Please see the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh vs State of Punjab 1995 SCC (1) 760 (SC). 13. As we have already observed that the impugned order suffers from lack of reasoning and is not a speaking order on the issue for which the impugned addition was made by the AO and the impugned order is not only cryptic but it is grossly violative of principles of natural justic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates