Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 990 - HC - Income TaxBlock assessment u/s 158BC - Genuineness of purchase transactions - claim of deduction u/s 80HHC - Did the ITAT fail to adhere to the specific mandate issued to it by this Court in the previous order in CIT v. Arun Malhotra (2013 (11) TMI 1493 - DELHI HIGH COURT )? - Held that:- If one peruses the impugned order of the ITAT in the present case, it is unmistakable that large portions of it have been virtually lifted verbatim from the order of the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) as well as the order of this Court by which the matter was remanded to it. Worse still, these portions are not placed in quotation marks. Contrary to what was expected to be done, as explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007 (9) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), there is no attribution by the ITAT in the impugned order to the source from which the said portions have been lifted. There was a specific mandate before the ITAT that had been spelt out in para 24 of this Court’s previous order. The ITAT was to consider afresh all the issues and contentions that arose before it. That the ITAT simply failed to do. It has chosen to adopt a shortcut by verbatim reproducing the portions of the order of the assessment order or the order of this Court whether for the purposes of setting out the facts or even the reasoning and conclusion. It is one thing the ITAT to quote from an order of the AO or the CIT (A) and then explain whether the ITAT agreed with or differed from the said portion. It is another to simply incorporate into the order those very words and passages without any attribution to the source leaving the reader wondering if that could be the actual reasoning of the ITAT. The present impugned order of the ITAT falls in the latter category. Looking at it from any point of view, the Court is unable to accept the impugned order of the ITAT as having satisfied the mandate of this Court, as spelt out in para 24 of its earlier order extracted hereinbefore.Consequently, the question framed is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue
|