TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT cannot be given power to give his opinion and direct the Assessing Officer to write the order as per the desires of the CIT. It was also noticed that even if inadequate examination or enquiry had been conducted by the Assessing Officer, the CIT cannot direct the Assessing Officer to re-write the order or to make the enquiry again. The Tribunal being final fact finding authority was required to deal with all aspects of factual matrix and then record its conclusions based thereon. Thus the order of ITAT does not satisfy the requirements of being a reasoned order as enunciated by the Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd's case (2010 (9) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), noticed herein above - matter is remanded to the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act cancelled the assessment holding the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment de novo after affording fresh opportunity to the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 30.7.2012 (Annexure A-3) allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal while reversing the findings of the CIT had not passed the reasoned speaking order which is the mandate as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial or judicial, had laid down as under:- 17. The expression 'speaking order' was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See 1878-97 Vol. 4 Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the report). 18. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the 'inscrutable face of a Sphinx'. 19 to 50 XX XX XX 51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t explained by the assessee and no enquiry whatsoever was made by the Assessing Officer to find out the genuineness of the deposits. The CIT held the assessment proceedings to be prejudicial and erroneous to the interest of the revenue and cancelled the same by directing the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment de novo after affording fresh opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT by observing that he was not justified in cancelling the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. The entirety of the facts were required to be gone before upsetting the order of the CIT by the Tribunal. Further, the order dated 30.7.2012 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Tribunal is not a speakin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
