M/s Hi-Tech Bottling Ltd, Sambalpur V. DCIT, Sambalpur

ITA 149/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 14922114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: SWATI KEJRIWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND HONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO. 149/CTK/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07) M/S. HI - TECH BOTTLING LTD., AT/P.O.SAK HIPARA,SAMBALPUR 768001 PAN: AAACH 8113 N VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), SAMBALPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: MISS. SWATI KEJRIWAL, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI S.C.MOHANTY, DR ORDER SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DT.14.2.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE , WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 3. ACCORDING TO SECTION 250(6) THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SHOULD BE IN WRITING STATING POINTS OF DETERMINATION. SECTION 250(6) IS AS FOLL OWS : - SEC. 250(6) : THE ORDER OF THE [COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION . THUS SECTION 250(6) ORDAINS THAT THE APPELLATE O RDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY M UST BE IN WRITING AND STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) ARE IN THE NATURE OF INSTRUCTION TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND EMPHASIZING THAT THE ORDER DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE A SPEAKING ORDER. THE ORDER SHALL NOT BE CRYPTIC. THE ORDER SHALL BE SELF - EXPLANATORY. THIS IS MORE SO, BECAUSE SUCH ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE ITA NO.149/CTK/2011 2 TRIBUNAL. THE OBJECT IS T OO OBVIOUS. IT ENABLES A PARTY TO KNOW PRECISE POINTS DECIDED IN HIS FAVOUR OR AGAINST HIM. ABSENCE OF FORMULATION OF THE POINTS FOR DECISION OR WANT OF CLARITY IN A DECISION UNDOUBTEDLY PUTS A PARTY IN QUANDARY. A DECISION BY ITS VERY NATURE MUST BE FIRM AND SHOULD NOT BE VAGUE AND UNCLEAR. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD CAN BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : - 1. ABDUL SATHAR HAJI MOOSA SAIT DHARMASTAPANAM VS. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 84 (KER) 2 . CIT VS. KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND (P) LTD. 74 ITR 254 (GUJ) 3 . CIT VS. BUILDWEL L ASSAM (P) LTD. (1982) 133 ITR 736 (GAUH) A JUDGMENT UNSUPPORTED BY REASONS IS NO JUDGMENT IN THE EYE OF LAW. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT REASONS ARE THE LINKS BETWEEN THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE COURT [CIT VS. SURENDRA SINGH PAHWA (1995) 79 TAXMAN 298] AND LASTLY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. HE SHOULD EXERCISE THE DISCRETION VESTED IN HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM SHOULD SHOW THAT HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERA TION THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS GERMANE TO THE ISSUE [V.N. PURUSHOTHAMAN VS. AG.ITO (1984) 149 ITR 120 (KER.)] . FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT THEMIS BIOSYN LTD. VS. JT. CIT 74 ITD 339 , ITAT, AHMENDABAD BENCH WHILE DISCU SSING U/S 250(6) HAS HELD THAT S ECTION 254 CONFERS PLENARY JURISDICTION ON THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF PASSING ORDERS UNDER SECTION 254 AND AS AGAINST THAT S ECTION 250(6) DOES NOT CONTAIN SUCH POWER HENCE THE REFERENCE MADE BY CIT(A) TO THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WA S ENTIRELY MISPLACED. 4. GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND CONSIDERING THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT, WE FOUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE WITHOUT ANY DI SCUSSION ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, WE H EREBY SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ITA NO.149/CTK/2011 3 LEARNED CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE AFRESH FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM OFCOURSE HOWEVER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 5 TH AUGUST, 2011 S D/ - S D/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 5 TH AUGUST, 2011 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: M/S. HI - TECH BOTTLING LTD., AT/P.O.SAKHIPARA,SAMBALPUR 768001 2. THE RESPONDENT: DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), SAMBALPUR. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.