Anand Cine Service, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1069/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8618 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAURYA M N
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 263; 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! ' #, % &' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1069/MDS/2015 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S ANAND CINE SERVICE, NO.3, SARANAGAPANI STREET, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : AAAFA 4996 K V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MEDIA WARD I, CHENNAI. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL NAIR, CA ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAURYA. M.N., CIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 18.07.2016 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.09.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10, CHENNAI, DATED 17.03.2015, AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. SHRI ANIL NAIR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE 2 I.T.A. NO.1069/MDS/15 VEHICLE WHICH IS MOUNTED WITH FILM EQUIPMENTS AND L ET OUT ON HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION AT 40%. SINCE THE FILM EQUIPM ENTS WERE INSTALLED ON THE VEHICLE, WHICH WAS LET OUT ON HIRE , ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE FILM EQUIPMENTS AS WELL AS VEHICLE IS ENTITLED FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION. HOWEVER, THE CIT FOUND TH AT THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF TH E VEHICLE WHICH WAS RUNNING ON HIRE, THEREFORE, THE FILM EQUIPMENT S WHICH WERE INSTALLED ON THE VEHICLE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A SUM OF ` 2,78,641/- TOWARDS DEPRECIATION WITH REGARD TO VARI ATION IN THE OPENING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE ON PLANT AND MACHINERY, HE ALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE RATE OF 40% IN RESPECT OF THE VEHICLE ALONG WITH FILM EQUIPMENTS. THEREFORE, T HE CIT OUGHT NOT HAVE EXERCISED HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT ANNEXURE 1 OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 1996-97, A SIMILAR DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF FILM EQUIPMENTS, WHICH WAS INSTALLED ON THE VEHICLE. EVEN FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 3 I.T.A. NO.1069/MDS/15 1990-91, IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN A PROCEEDING U NDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT ANN EXURE 2 OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF A PEX COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT (243 ITR 83) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. ( 203 ITR 108), THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN TWO VIEWS AR E POSSIBLE, THE CIT OUGHT NOT HAVE EXERCISED HIS POWER UNDER SECTIO N 263 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. R EPRESENTATIVE, TOOK ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND ALLOWED THE CLAI M OF DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 40%, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI MAURYA M.N., THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE NATURE O F THE VEHICLE LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., HI GHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE VE HICLE WHICH WAS LET OUT ON HIRE. IN THE CASE IN OUR HAND, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., NO VEHICLE WAS LET OUT. WHAT WAS LET OUT IS ONLY A GE NERATOR FOR FILM PRODUCTION. IN RESPECT OF THE GENERATOR, WHICH WAS LET OUT BY THE 4 I.T.A. NO.1069/MDS/15 ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE ALLOWED MERELY BECAUSE THE GENERATOR WAS INSTALLED ON THE VEHICLE. THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY TO LET OUT THE GENERATOR AND NOT THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT B E CONSTRUED AS IF THE SAME WAS RECEIVED FOR LETTING OUT THE VEHICL E. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIG IBLE FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. 4. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSE D ANYTHING ABOUT DEPRECIATION FOR THE VEHICLE ON WHICH GENERAT OR WAS MOUNTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERS ONLY TO VARIATION IN T HE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE ON THE PLANT AND MACHINERY. SINCE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO DEPRECIATION OF VEHICLE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R ., IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF TH E POSSIBLE VIEW. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY VI EW AT ALL. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE F ACTS OF THE CASE AND THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., AT ANY STRETCH OF IMAGIN ATION IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF TH E POSSIBLE VIEW AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COM PANY LTD. 5 I.T.A. NO.1069/MDS/15 (SUPRA). REFERRING TO THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEAL S) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 1990- 91, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT EACH ASSESSMENT YEA R IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE RE WAS A VARIANCE IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT K NOWN WHETHER THE SAME ASSET WAS CONTINUED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. 5. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO AFTER CONDUCTING ENQUIRIES ON THE VITAL ASPECTS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE ON THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSI ONER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER ABOUT THE DEPRECIATION FOR VEHICLE AND GENERATOR SAID TO BE INSTALLED ON THE VEHICLE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE LET OUT THE VEHI CLE ALONG WITH THE GENERATOR INSTALLED ON THE VEHICLE. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE ASSESSEE LET OUT TH E GENERATOR ALONG WITH THE VEHICLE ON WHICH IT WAS MOUNTED, WHETHER T HE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION OR NOT? THIS ASPE CT OR QUESTION WAS 6 I.T.A. NO.1069/MDS/15 NOT DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER IS SILENT. THEREFORE, AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY VIEW AT ALL. 7. THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION136 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD AND DISCUSS THE MATTER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE RE ASONS RECORDED FOR THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHALL BE THE LIVE LINK TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE MI ND OF THE DECISION MAKER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER BY RECORDING HIS OWN REASONS FOR THE CONCLUSION REA CHED IN THE ORDER. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ADMITTEDLY HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TH E APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS NOT REF LECTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN THOU GH FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SAID TO BE ALLOWED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXAMINE THE S AME AND IF THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LA W THAT EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS OF EVERY ASSESSM ENT YEAR 7 I.T.A. NO.1069/MDS/15 INDEPENDENTLY AND RECORD HIS OWN REASONS FOR THE CO NCLUSION REACHED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE PROCEEDING BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FURTHERMORE, THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUBJECTED TO REVISION/APPEAL B EFORE THE HIGHER FORUMS. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE REVISIONAL/APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECORD HIS OWN REASONS FOR THE CONCLUSION RE ACHED THEREIN. OTHERWISE, THE VERY OBJECT OF PROVIDING REVISIONAL / APPELLATE REMEDIES UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WOU LD BE DEFEATED. MOREOVER, THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WOULD ELIMINATE ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION MAKIN G PROCESS. IN THE LATEST JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN C IT V. SUNIL KUMAR GOEL [2005] 274 ITR 53, THE HIGH COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH OF THE APE X COURT IN S.N.MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 SC 1984, HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: IN S.N.MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 SC 1984, A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT DISCUSSED TH E DEVELOPMENT OF LAW ON THIS SUBJECT IN INDIA, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND AFTER MAKING REFERENCE TO A LARGE NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, THEIR LORDSHIPS CULL ED OUT THE 8 I.T.A. NO.1069/MDS/15 FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS (PAGE 1995) : 'THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE INDI CATE THAT WITH REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENT TO RECORD REASONS TH E APPROACH OF THIS COURT IS MORE IN LINE WITH THAT OF THE AMER ICAN COURTS. AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS WEIGHED WITH T HE COURT FOR HOLDING THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY EXERCIS ING QUASI- JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS MUST RECORD THE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION, IS THAT SUCH A DECISION IS SUBJECT TO THE APPELLATE JU RISDICTION OF THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION AS W ELL AS THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURTS UNDER A RTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT THE REASONS, IF RECORDED, WOULD ENABLE THIS COURT OR THE HIGH COURTS TO EFFECTIVELY EXERCIS E THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY POWER. BUT THIS IS NOT THE SOLE CONSIDERATION. THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH THE COURT IN TAKING THIS VIEW ARE THAT THE REQ UIREMENT OF RECORDING REASONS WOULD (I) GUARANTEE CONSIDERATION BY THE AUTHORITY; (II) INTRODUCE CLARITY IN THE DECISIONS; AND (III) MINIMISE CHANCES OF ARBITRARINESS IN DECISION MAKIN G. IN THIS REGARD A DISTINCTION HAS BEEN DRAWN BETWEEN ORDINAR Y COURTS OF LAW AND TRIBUNALS AND AUTHORITIES EXERCISING JUDICIA L FUNCTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT A JUDGE IS TRAINED TO LOOK AT THING S OBJECTIVELY UNINFLUENCED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIEN CY WHEREAS AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER GENERALLY LOOKS AT THINGS FROM THE STAND POINT OF POLICY AND EXPEDIENCY. REASONS, WHEN RECORDED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORI TY IN AN ORDER PASSED BY IT WHILE EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL F UNCTIONS, WOULD NO DOUBT FACILITATE THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISD ICTION BY THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY. BUT THE OTHER CO NSIDERATIONS, REFERRED TO ABOVE, WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH THI S COURT IN HOLDING THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY MUST RECOR D REASONS FOR ITS DECISION, ARE OF NO LESS SIGNIFICANCE. THES E CONSIDERATIONS SHOW THAT THE RECORDING OF REASONS B Y AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY SERVES A SALUTARY PURPOSE, NAMELY, IT EXCLUDES CHANCES OF ARBITRARINESS AND ENSURES A DEGR EE OF FAIRNESS IN THE PROCESS OF DECISION-MAKING. THE SAI D PURPOSE WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL DECISIONS AND ITS APPLIC ATION CANNOT BE CONFINED TO DECISIONS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. IN OUR OPINION, THEREFORE, THE REQ UIREMENT THAT 9 I.T.A. NO.1069/MDS/15 REASONS BE RECORDED SHOULD GOVERN THE DECISIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL F UNCTIONS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE DECISION IS SU BJECT TO APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. IT MAY, HOWEVE R, BE ADDED THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE REASONS SHOULD BE AS ELABORATE AS IN THE DECISION OF A COURT OF LAW. THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE REASONS WOULD DEPEND ON PARTICULAR FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES. WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT THE REASONS ARE CLEAR AND EXPLICIT SO AS TO INDICATE THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN DUE CON SIDERATION TO THE POINTS IN CONTROVERSY. THE NEED FOR RECORDING O F REASONS IS GREATER IN A CASE WHERE THE ORDER IS PASSED AT THE ORIGINAL STAGE. THE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, IF IT AFFIRMS SUCH AN ORDER, NEED NOT GIVE SEPARATE REASONS IF THE APPELL ATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY AGREES WITH THE REASONS CONTAI NED IN THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE.' IN TESTEELS LTD. V. N. M. DESAI [1970] 37 FJR 7; AIR 1970 GUJ 1, A FULL BENCH OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS MADE AN EXTREMELY LUCID ENUNCIATION OF LAW ON THE SUBJECT AND WE CAN DO NO BETTER THAN TO EXTRACT SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THAT DECISI ON. THE SAME ARE (HEADNOTE OF AIR 1970 (GUJ): 'THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS FLOWS AS A NECESSA RY COROLLARY FROM THE RULE OF LAW WHICH CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE B ASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL SET-UP. THE ADMINISTRA TIVE AUTHORITIES HAVING A DUTY TO ACT JUDICIALLY CANNOT THEREFORE DE CIDE ON CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY. THEY MUST DE CIDE THE MATTER SOLELY ON THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, SOLELY ON THE MATERIAL BEFORE THEM AND APART FROM ANY EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS BY APPLYING PRE-EXISTING LEGAL NORMS TO FACTUAL SITUATIONS. NOW THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS IS AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE DUTY TO ACT J UDICIALLY. IT INTRODUCES CLARITY, CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTRA NEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND EXCLUDES OR, AT ANY RA TE, MINIMISES ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. ANOTHER REASON WHICH COMPELS MAKING OF SUCH AN ORDE R IS BASED ON THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH IS POSSESSED BY THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THESE COURTS HAVE THE POWER UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS TO QUASH BY CERTIORARI A QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER MADE BY AN 10 I.T.A. NO.1069/MDS/15 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 COURT S CANNOT EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW. T HE HIGH COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE POWERLESS TO I NTERFERE SO AS TO KEEP THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WITHIN THE LIMIT S OF THE LAW. THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW W OULD BE STULTIFIED AND NO REDRESS BEING AVAILABLE TO THE CI TIZEN, THERE WOULD BE INSIDIOUS ENCOURAGEMENT TO ARBITRARINESS AND CAP RICE. IF THIS REQUIREMENT IS INSISTED UPON, THEN, THEY WILL BE SU BJECT 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 A NY DIFFICULTY IN SETTING ASIDE THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION O F THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE FLOWERY LANGUAGE USED BY THE T RIBUNAL TO JUSTIFY ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESPONDENT'S PLEA THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE LAW DOES NOT WARRANT OUR AFFIRMATION. IN OUR OPINION, T HE TRIBUNAL WAS DUTY BOUND TO RECORD TANGIBLE AND COGENT REASONS FO R UPSETTING WELL REASONED ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED ITS ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE OF SECTIONS 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SAME FAMIL Y AND THEN DECIDED BY A REASONED ORDER WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT A CASE FOR DELETING THE PENALTY. THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE CLEARLY REFLECTED THE APPLICATION OF MI ND BY THE LEARNED MEMBERS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO RECORD HIS OWN REASONS FOR THE CONCLUSION REACHED, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNFOR TUNATELY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE FACTS ARE NOT COMING OUT IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED 11 I.T.A. NO.1069/MDS/15 OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THIS TR IBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( ... ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 /CIT-10, CHENNAI-34 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. ) = /GF.