9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Liberty India Ltd. v. CIT (317 ITR 218). According to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee after considering the entire facts of the case. In fact, a questionnaire was issued to the assessee and the assessee has filed all the details called for by the Assessing Officer. For the assessment year 2010- 11, an identical issue came before this Tribunal in the assessee's own case, in respect of cylinder transport charges. This Tribunal found that the Central Excise Department has taken the cylinder transport charges as part of the sale consideration for sale of liquid carbon dioxide. Therefore, when the one wing of Central Government considers the transport of carbon dioxide as part of sale consideration, there is no reason to exclude the same while computing taxable income under the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found that the delivery charges of carbon dioxide should be treated as having direct nexus with industrial undertaking of the assessee, therefore, it is an integral part of turnover and the same is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act. In view of this decision of the Tribunal, according to the Ld. counsel, the Administra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the Assessing Officer is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the Commissioner has rightly refused the order of the Assessing Officer in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. We have carefully gone through the order of the Assessing Officer. There is no reference or discussion about the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IB of the Act. The question arises for consideration is when the Assessing Officer has not discussed anything in the assessment order, can we presume that the Assessing Officer considered all the material available on record and allowed the claim of the assessee? Admittedly, the proceeding before the Assessing Officer is a judicial proceeding under Section 131 of the Act. The reason for conclusion reached in the judicial proceeding has to be recorded in the order itself. It is well settled principle of law whether it is an administrative order or judicial order, the reason for the conclusion / decision has to be recorded in the order itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness in decision making. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the stand point of policy and expediency. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash by certiorari a quasi-judicial order made by an administrative officer and this power of review can be effectively exercised only if the order is a speaking order. In the absence of any reasons in support of the order, the said courts cannot examine the correctness of the order under review. The High Court and the Supreme Court would be powerless to interfere so as to keep the administrative officer within the limits of the law. The result would be that the power of judicial review would be stultified and no redress being available to the citizen, there would be insidious encouragement to arbitrariness and caprice. If this requirement is insisted upon, then, they will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction." If the order passed by the Tribunal is scrutinised in the light of the aforementioned proposition of law, we do not find any difficulty in setting aside the same on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. The flowery language used by the Tribunal to justify its acceptance of the respondent's plea that he did not know the law does not warrant our affirmation. In our opinion, the Tribunal was duty bound to record tangible and cogent reasons for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
