TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUPREME COURT] The second equal relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. In as much as the impugned order is bereft of any reasons and further the same has not dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his application filed under Section 220(2A) of the Act, and in view of the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by Apex Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and by order dated 21.2.2011, the appellate authority, by accepting the explanation of the petitioner, deleted the addition of ₹ 25,00,000/- and confirmed the balance amount of ₹ 1,17,50,000/-, as unexplained investment, for tax. Aggrieved by order of the Commissioner (Appeals), in confirming the assessment order for ₹ 1,17,50,000/-, the petitioner filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and similarly assailing the deletion of ₹ 25,00,000/-, the Revenue filed cross-appeal. The Tribunal by order dated 25.1.2012 allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and thus, the initial order of the assessment officer was restored. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner for waiver of interest and hence, the impugned order does not warrant interference. 6. A perusal of the impugned order, which is extracted above, shows that the 1st respondent Commissioner, has not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the petition filed under Section 220(2A) of the Act and has passed an order bereft of reasons. 7. The settled legal proposition is that the impugned order itself shall contain reasons justifying the decision taken and they cannot be supplemented by way of an affidavit. For better appreciation, the law laid down by the Apex Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL v. CHIEF ELECTION COMMR. AIR 1978 SC 851, may be referred: 8. The second equal relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
