Menlo Worldwide Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1756/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 175620114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 30-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AROOP KR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S K AGGRAWAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report
• Section: 43B; 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI E BENC H BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NO.1756/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 MENLO WORLDWIDE FORWARDING INDIA PVT. LTD., D-12/1, OKHLA INDL. ESTATE, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-10 V /S . DEPUTY CIT, CIRCLE-6 (1), NEW DELHI [PAN : AAACE 2236 R] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.K. AGGRAWAL, AR REVENUE BY SHRI AROOP KR. SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING 30-10-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-10-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 16 TH APRIL, 2012 BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 23-02-2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-IX, NEW DE LHI, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23 DECEMBER, 200 9 BY ALLEGING NON APPEARANCE OF THE APPELLANT AND ASSUMING THAT THE A PPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS, WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND IN COM PLETE VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE, THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG, BAD IN LAW, NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND LIABL E TO BE SET ASIDE. ITA N O.1756 /DEL./2012 2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 3. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN UPHOLD ING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL TAX L IABILITY OF RS. ` 50,84,763. 4. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN UPHOLD ING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AO IN LEVYING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AMO UNTING ` .6,843,884 ON THE SALE OF 'CUSTOMER CONTRACTS' AND 'HUMAN RESOURC ES' ON THE FOLLOWING COUNTS: 4.1 IN CONSIDERING THAT THE CUSTOMER CONTRACTS AND HUMAN RESOURCES ARE AKIN TO GOODWILL/RIGHT TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS AND ACCO RDINGLY THE COST OF ACQUISITION FOR THE SAME CAN BE CONSIDERED AS NIL U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 48, 49 AND 55 OF THE ACT. 4.2 IN DISREGARDING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY TH E SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISION OF CIT VS 8.C SRINIVAS SETTY [128 ITR 294] REGARDING COMPUTATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION AND DATE OF ACQUISITION FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS IN THE CASE OF SELF GENERATED ASSETS DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. 4.3 IN CONSIDERING THE ABOVE ASSETS AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSETS. 5. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN UPHOLD ING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN TAXING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON A GROSS BASIS, HOLDING THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT H AS DISCONTINUED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DISALLOWING THE FO LLOWING EXPENSES: 5.1 DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING ` .237,895 INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. 5.2 DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY TH E APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ALLOWABLE U/S 43B ON PAYMENT BASIS ON ACCOUN T OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT AMOUNTING ` .117,688. ITA N O.1756 /DEL./2012 3 5.3 DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING ` .14,500,882 CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ALLOWABLE U/S 40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS THE TAX HAS BEEN DULY DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED IN THE REL EVANT YEAR AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION .. 6. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN UPHOLD ING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AO IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF AND CARRY FORWA RD OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS AMOUNTING ` .1,022,451 INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE COURSE OF TRANSFER OF IT'S DEPRECIABLE FIXED ASSETS U/S 50(2) OF THE ACT, ON THE FOLLOWING COUNTS: 6.1 IN ALLEGING THAT THE SALES CONSIDERATION FOR S UCH ASSETS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY SHOWN AT A REDUCED VALUE AND THEREBY I GNORING THE VALUATION REPORT AND METHOD OF VALUATION APPLIED BY AN INDEPE NDENT PROFESSIONAL VALUER. 6.2 BASED ON HIS SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, THE AO HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES HAS NO T BEEN MADE AT ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. 7. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN UPHOLD ING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AO IN LEVYING ADDITIONAL INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO ` . 577,977 AND ` .1,106,935 RESPECTIVELY. 8. THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AND INDEPENDENT OF ONE ANOTHER. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AL TER, AMEND AND/OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG OF THIS APPEAL. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THA T THE RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` ` 1,51,04,384/- FILED ON 30.03.2009 BY THE ASSESSEE, AFTER BEING PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, ISSUED ON 29 TH AUGUST, 2009 [INCORRECTLY MENTIONED AS 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008]. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER (A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCONTINUED ITS B USINESS OPERATIONS W.E.F. 01.04.2006 AND SOLD ITS ASSETS TO UPS (SCS) INDIA P VT. LTD. IN A NOTE APPENDED TO RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 13.04.2009, AT PARA 1 UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS ITA N O.1756 /DEL./2012 4 ON ITEMIZED SALE OF ASSETS ON TRANSFER OF BUSINESS , THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TRANSFER OF ITS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIO N BUSINESS TO UPS SCS INDIA PVT. LTD. UNDER AN AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE FROM 1.4.200 6. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT UPS SCS INDIA PVT. LTD. UNDER THIS AGREEMENT A CQUIRED THE FIXED ASSETS, HUMAN RESOURCES, CUSTOMER CONTRACTS AND LIABILITIES DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE EMPLOYEES FOR A NET CONSIDERATION OF ` `80,15,387/-. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS TO UPS SCS INDIA PVT. LTD., BUT IT HAS TRIED TO AVOID TERMING THIS TRANSACTION AS S LUMP SALE AND INSTEAD IT HAS IDENTIFIED AND ASSIGNED VALUE TO EACH ASSET AND CON SIDERATION THEREOF HAS BEEN DETERMINED ITEM-WISE IN THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT. TH E ASSESSEE WORKED OUT SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF ` ` 10,22,764/- ON SALE OF FIXED DEPRECIABLE ASSETS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50(2) OF THE ACT AND DEMARCAT ED A TOTAL OF ` ` 68,43,884/- TOWARDS TRANSFER OF CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP AND HUMA N RESOURCE OUT OF THE TOTAL NET CONSIDERATION, EXCLUDING LIABILITIES, OF ` ` 80,15,887/- WHILE CLAIMING THAT THE SAME IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, THERE BEING NO COST OF ACQUISITION AND RELIED UPON DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T, BANGALORE VS. B.C. SRINIVAS SETTY (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC). HOWEVER, T HE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRING TO RELEVA NT PROVISION OF SECTION 48, 49, 55 AND WORKED OUT CAPITAL GAINS OF ` `68,43,884/- AND REJECTED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES OF ` ` 10,37,895/-. 3. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON SEEKING ADJOUR NMENTS ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER AND DID NOT FILE ANY SUBMISSIO NS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 4.0 FROM THE APPELLATE FOLDER, IT IS SEEN THAT A NOTICE DATED 14.9.2010 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 23.9.2010 WAS ISSUED BUT NO BODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. AGAIN ON 28.9.2010 A NOTICE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 26.10.2010. ON 26.10.2010 AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 9.11.2010. O N 9.11 .2010 AGAIN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED AND THE CA SE WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.11.2010 BUT NONE ATTENDED ON THIS DATE. 4.1 ON 13.12.2010, SHRI ALOK KR. SINHA, CA ATTENDE D AND FILED POWER OF ATTORNEY AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO ITA N O.1756 /DEL./2012 5 20.12.2010. ON 20.12.2010 NOBODY APPEARED. FURTHER, ON 24.1.2011, SHRI ALOK KUMAR SINHA, CA ATTENDED AND REQUESTED FOR ADJ OURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 27.1.2011. ON 27.1.2011 AGAIN SHRI ALOK KUMAR SINHA, CA APPEARED AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 3.2.20 11 ON HIS REQUEST. ON 3.2.2011, SHRI ALOK KUMAR SINHA, CA APPEARED AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 7.2.2011. BUT ON 7.2.2011 NOBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. 4.2 ON 11.2.2011, SHRI SANJAY PAUL, CA APPEARED AN D REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR THE LAST TIME TILL 18.2.2011 WITH T HE CONDITION THAT FAILING THE COMPLIANCE, THE CASE SHALL BE DECIDED EX PARTE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON 18.2.2011 NOBODY ATTENDED TH E OFFICE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. 4.3 THE ABOVE POSITION IS SUMMARIZED IN THE TABULA R FORM AS UNDER :- SNO. DATE OF DATE OF DATE OF REMARKS NOTICE HEARING ADJOURNMENT 1 14.9.2010 23.9.2010 -- NONE ATTENDED 2 28.9.2010 26.10.2010 9.11.2010 CASE ADJOURN ED ON APPELLANT'S REQUEST. 3 9.11.2010 -- 18.11.2010 NONE ATTEND ED 4 13.12.2010 -- 20.12.2010 POWER OF A TTORNEY FILED AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MADE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON THE ARS REQUEST. 5 20.12.2010 NONE ATTENDED. 6 24.1.2011 27.1.2011 CASE ADJOUR NED ON APPELLANT'S REQUEST. 7 27.1.2011 3.2.2011 -DO- ITA N O.1756 /DEL./2012 6 8 3.2.2011 7.2.2011 NONE ATTENDED 9 11.2.2011 18.2.2011 C ASE ADJOURNED LAST TIME ON AP PELLANT'S REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT FAILING THE COMPLIANCE, THE CASE SHALL BE DECIDED ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. 10 18.2.2011 NONE ATTE NDED. 4.4 THE ABOVE FACTS ARE A POINTER TOWARDS THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. UNDER THE CI RCUMSTANCES, I HAVE NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBST ANTIATED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND NOTHING IS AVAILABLE ON RECOR D TO SUPPORT THE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE ONLY MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BY T HE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE APPEAL. HENCE, I HAVE TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME. 5.0 IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE IN STANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIP MADE THE FOLLOW ING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER :- IF THE PARTY, AS WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATIO N OF THE PAPER BOOK SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NO T BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT O F MADHYA PRADESH HAS DISMISSED THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN DE FAULT. 5.1 IN THE CASE OF CLT V B. N. BHATTACHARGEE & AN OTHER REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (P/477), THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE HELD AS UNDER :- 'THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING. ITA N O.1756 /DEL./2012 7 5.2 SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL I .T.A.T. IN A NUMBER OF CASES AS MENTIONED BELOW:- SANJEEV SIKKA V ITA WARD 41(4) IN ITA NO. 01/0D/2 010 DATED 3.3.10. *M/S SHEBAWHEELS P LTD. V. ITA WARD 8(2) IN ITA NO. 919-9201OE112010 DATED 6.3.10. *M/S SILVER STREAKS TRADING P. LTD. V ITA WD.8(4) I N ITA N0.1137/D/2007 DATED 26.3. 10. MULTIPLAN INDIA 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 6.0 UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FACT THAT THE A PPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL IS A CLEAR INDICA TOR THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN ITS POSSESSI ON TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION OF THE AO AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SIN CE, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EVEN T HE STATEMENT OF FACTS DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE SUCH GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND DO ES NOT THROW MUCH LIGHT ON THE SAME, I REJECT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND UPHOLD THE ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO ` .68,43,884/- MADE BY THE ID. AO. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US GAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT (A). AT THE OUTSET, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. C IT(A),THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEING NON-SPEAKING ONE. 5 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THRO UGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER AND DID NOT PURSUE THEIR APPEAL SERIOUSLY. IN ANY CASE, THE LD. CIT(A ) DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT EVEN ANALYZING THE ISSUES OR RECORDING HIS SPECIFI C FINDINGS ON THE SAID ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM . THIS APPROACH OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. A MERE GLANCE AT THE I MPUGNED ORDER REVEALS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CRYPTIC AND GROSSLY VIOLATIVE OF ONE OF THE FACETS OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, NAMELY, THAT EVERY JUDICIAL/QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY/AUT HORITY MUST PASS REASONED ORDER, WHICH SHOULD REFLECT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ITA N O.1756 /DEL./2012 8 CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO THE ISSUES/POINTS RAISED BEF ORE IT. THE APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE MATERIAL FACTS AND THE A RGUMENTS SHOULD MANIFEST ITSELF IN THE ORDER. SECTION 250(6) OF T HE ACT MANDATES THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINA TION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. THE REQUI REMENT OF RECORDING OF REASONS AND COMMUNICATION THEREOF BY T HE QUASI- JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES HAS BEEN READ AS AN INTEGRAL P ART OF THE CONCEPT OF FAIR PROCEDURE AND IS AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW. IT INTRODUCES CLARIT Y, CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTRANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERAT IONS AND MINIMIZES ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROC ESS. WE MAY REITERATE THAT A DECISION DOES NOT MERELY MEAN TH E CONCLUSION. IT EMBRACES WITHIN ITS FOLD THE REASONS FORMING BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION.[MUKHTIAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB,(199 5)1SCC 760(SC)]. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT REASONS ARE THE L INKS BETWEEN THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE COURT A ND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BEING A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM SHOULD SHOW THAT HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION T HE BASIC REQUIREMENTS GERMANE TO THE ISSUE [V.N. PURUSHOTHAMAN VS. AG.I TO (1984) 149 ITR 120 (KER.)]. 5.1 A CO-ORDINATE BRANCH IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT THE MIS BIOSYN LTD. VS. JT. CIT 74 ITD 339 (AHD) ,IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, O BSERVED AS UNDER: 3.WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. THE IMPUGNED OR DER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS CLEARLY VIOLATIVE OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIO NS OF S. 250(6), WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AR E TO STATE THE POINTS ARISING IN THE APPEAL, THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORI TY THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE OF THE PROVISION IS THAT SUCH ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TR IBUNAL. SPEAKING ORDER WOULD OBVIOUSLY ENABLE A PARTY TO KNOW PRECISE POIN TS DECIDED IN HIS FAVOUR OR AGAINST HIM. ABSENCE OF THE FORMULATION O F THE POINT FOR DECISION ITA N O.1756 /DEL./2012 9 FOR WANT OF CLARITY IN A DECISION UNDOUBTEDLY PUTS A PARTY IN QUANDARY. SEC. 250(6) EXPRESSLY EMBODIES THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND SUCH A PROVISION IS CLEARLY MANDATORY IN NATURE. THE IMPU GNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 250 (6) CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE SUSTAINED. REGARDING THE DECISIONS OF THE DELHI BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LEARNED C IT(A), WE FIND THAT THE SAID DECISION IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. SEC 254 R EFERRING TO THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFERS PLENARY JURISDICTION ON THE TR IBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF PASSING ORDERS UNDER S. 254(1). THERE IS NO SUCH EX PRESS STIPULATION IN S. 254 AS CONTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 250(6) RELATING TO THE ORDERS OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, RELIANCE PLAC ED BY THE CIT(A) ON MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) IS ENTIRELY MISPLACED. SIMILARLY, THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A ) IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A). FOR THE REASONS INDICATED ABOVE, WE HERE BY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD . CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER ON VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM ,WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDING THE ISSUES IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE, AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER ALLO WING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES. NEEDLESS TO SAY TH AT WHILE REDECIDING THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER, KEEPING IN MIND, INTER ALIA, THE MANDATE OF PROVISI ONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SHALL SUO MOTU APPROACH T HE LD. CIT(A) WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER FO R EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF APPEAL AND SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNME NT WITHOUT VALID REASONS. 7.. GROUND NO.8 IN THE APPEAL BEING GENERAL IN NAT URE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION WHILE NO ADDITIONAL GROUN D HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERM OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.9 IN THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. ITA N O.1756 /DEL./2012 10 8. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS RAISED BEFORE US . 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPUTY CIT,CIRCLE-6 (1),NEW DELHI 3. CIT CONCERNED. 4. CIT(A)-IX, NEW DELHI 5. DR, ITAT,E BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT