TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the parties, the following question is framed for determination: Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) fail to adhere to the specific mandate issued to it by this Court in the previous order dated 25th November, 2013 in CIT v. Arun Malhotra (2014) 363 ITR 195(Del) ? 5. The background facts of the present case have been set-out in considerable detail in the previous order of this Court in CIT v. Arun Malhotra (supra) and need not be repeated in extenso. While setting aside the previous order of the ITAT dated 5th August 20008, this Court directed as follows: 24. In view of the aforesaid, we answer the questions of law in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent but with an order of remand to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49(SC), where one of the contentions of the Revenue in challenging the order of the Madras High Court was that the judgment under challenge had merely plagiarized substantial portions from the order of the Commissioner and Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion and no independent assessment on the questions of law that arose for consideration, had been made. Although the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, it observed: We feel that quoting from an order of some authority particularly a specialized one cannot per-se be faulted as this procedure can often help in making for brevity and precision, but we agree with Mr. Vahanvati to the extent that any 'borrowed words' u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 12. 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. 13. Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
