TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of ITAT does not suffer from any illegality and why the grounds of Revenue are not acceptable and why the appeal does not involve any substantial question(s) of law or though framed cannot be answered in Revenue’s favour, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional errors and, therefore, legally unsustainable for want of compliance of the requirements of subsections (4) and (5) of Section 260A of the Act. This Court has consistently laid emphasis that every order/judgment, which decides the lis between the parties, must contain the reason(s)/ground(s) for arriving at a particular conclusion. In order to decide as to whether the impugned order is legally sustainable or not, the Appellate Court is entitled to know as to wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.1997 (Assessment Years 1987-88 to 1996-97 and 1997-98 up to 04.09.1997) against the assessee to determine their tax liability as a result of search operations carried in their premises. The matter, out of the block assessment proceedings, reached to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the respondent against the order of the assessing authorities. 5. The Tribunal (ITAT), however, decided the various issues arising in the case in favour of the respondent(assessee) by allowing the respondent's appeal, which gave rise to filing of the appeal by the Revenue before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 6. The High Court by impugned judgment dismissed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion for the dismissal of the appeal. 10. Indeed, the observation made in paragraph 13 that In view of the above does not lead us anywhere because, as mentioned above, in the paragraphs 1 to 12 no reasons are mentioned except the facts and the submissions. 11. That apart, we find that the High Court committed another error. The High Court while deciding the appeal heard the learned counsel for the parties, yet did not frame any substantial question of law arising in the case. 12. Section 260A of the Act is akin to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with addition of subsections (6)(a),6(b) and (7) of Section 260A of the Act. 13. The High Court has jurisdiction to dismiss the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve, in the absence of any discussion or/and the reasoning/ground as to why the order of ITAT does not suffer from any illegality and why the grounds of Revenue are not acceptable and why the appeal does not involve any substantial question(s) of law or though framed cannot be answered in Revenue s favour, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional errors and, therefore, legally unsustainable for want of compliance of the requirements of subsections (4) and (5) of Section 260A of the Act. 17. This Court has consistently laid emphasis that every order/judgment, which decides the lis between the parties, must contain the reason(s)/ground(s) for arriving at a particular conclusion. 18. Indeed, what is decisive for deciding the case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
