Ejaz Tanning Company, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 389/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 38921714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JOE JEBASTIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGHAV PRASAD ACA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 263; 40A(3); 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.389/MDS/2015 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S EJAZ TANNING COMPANY, NO.15, OLD NO.8, V.V. KOIL STREET, PERIAMET, CHENNAI - 600 003. PAN : AAAFE 7758 D V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, CHENNAI - 600 006. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAGHAV PRASAD, ACA -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JOE JEBASTIAN, CIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 18.05.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.05.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI-9, CHENNAI, DATED 19.12.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2 I.T.A. NO.389/MDS/15 2. SHRI RAGHAV PRASAD, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR T HE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT 'THE ACT') BY AN ORDER DATED 31.12.2013. HOWEVER, THE COMMISS IONER, IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. REFERRING TO THE IMPUGNED OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS COMPLETED IN UNDUE HASTE WITHOUT CONDUCTING NECESSARY INVESTI GATION AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE RELEVANT MATERIA L. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLE D FOR THE DETAILS, NAMELY, BANK STATEMENTS, DETAILS OF COMMISSION PAID , TDS, AUDIT REPORT, THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES WHO FILED FORM 1 5G, ETC. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE C REDITORS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY NECESSARY ENQUIRY. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT OF COURSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED ANYT HING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH REGARD TO NATURE OF ENQUIRY C ONDUCTED AND THE DOCUMENTS EXAMINED BY HIM. IT DOES NOT MEAN, A CCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED 3 I.T.A. NO.389/MDS/15 HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. REFERRING TO TH E EACH AND EVERY RELIEF GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. REPR ESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT WITH REGARD TO DUTY DRAWBACK, THE AS SESSEE-FIRM EARNED PROFIT EVEN IF THE DUTY DRAWBACK WAS EXCLUDE D FROM THE GROSS PROFIT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER POIN TED OUT THAT COMPARISON OF DUTY DRAWBACK IS TO BE MADE ONLY WITH GROSS PROFIT AND NOT WITH NET PROFIT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SU BMITTED THAT CUSTOMS DUTY DRAWBACK ONLY IS IN THE NATURE OF INCE NTIVE. REFERRING TO THE INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT OF LEATHER SECTOR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NEW SUBSIDY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHI CH REQUIRES EXAMINATION. 3. WITH REGARD TO SUNDRY CREDITORS, THE LD. REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTIN Y ASSESSMENT FOR THE 7 TH CONSECUTIVE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMA TION LETTER FOR THE CREDIT OF ` 2.5 CRORES FROM SHRI A.G. NASER AHMED AND ALSO A CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM M/S NASER TANNING COMPANY. OF COURSE, THESE CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE NOT REFERRED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE SAME. SIMILARLY, THE SALES COMMISSION AND THE PAYMENT MADE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, VAT 4 I.T.A. NO.389/MDS/15 RETURNS, CHARITY AND DONATION, JOB WORK CHARGES WER E ALL EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO THE COMMISS ION SAID TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSIO N OF 28.32% ON DOMESTIC SALES. NO ONE COULD PAY THE COMMISSION OF 28.32%. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE COMMISSION PAID WAS ONLY 3% TO 5%. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI JOE JEBASTIAN, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE FOR PAYMENT OF SAL ES COMMISSION, DONATION, JOB WORK CHARGES, ETC. THE A SSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT INCLUDED THE DUTY DRAWBACK TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3,50,04,823/- IN THE INCOME. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS IN THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2011 AT ` 4,33,77,843/- AS AGAINST ` 4,46,46,939/- FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED ANY OF THE MATERIAL RECEIVED FROM SHRI A.G. NASER AHMED AND M/ S NASER TANNING COMPANY NOR THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT 5 I.T.A. NO.389/MDS/15 ORDER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THE AGENCY COMMIS SION OF ` 64,33,064/- AND LOCAL AGENCY COMMISSION OF ` 1,15,52,348/-. THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN AGENCY COMMISSION UNDER SECTI ON 40(A)(IA), NO ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED WITH REGARD TO COMMISSION PAI D LOCALLY. THE TDS DETAILS IN RESPECT OF LOCAL AGENCY COMMISSION W AS ALSO NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID CA SH EXCEEDING ` 20,000/- IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY WITH REG ARD TO THIS AND THERE IS NO REFERENCE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. THE COMMISSIONER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD NOT CONDUCTED ANY NECESSARY ENQUIRY. THEREFORE, THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE COMMI SSIONER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DUTY DRAWBACK FROM INCOME , PAYMENT OF SALES COMMISSION, PAYMENT OF CASH EXCEEDING ` 20,000/-, VAT RETURNS, CHARITY AND DONATION, JOB WORK CHARGES AS EXPENSES IN THE 6 I.T.A. NO.389/MDS/15 RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MA DE ANY REFERENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT ALL ITS GEN UINENESS OR ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SILENT ON THESE ISSUES RAISED BY THE COM MISSIONER. 6. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 136 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER . IN OTHER WORDS, THE REASON FOR CONCLUSION REACHED SHALL BE R EFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO DISPOSE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RECOR D HIS OWN REASONING FOR ALLOWING OR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPEAL/REVISION BEFORE THE HIGHER AUTHOR ITIES. THEREFORE, RECORDING OF THE REASONS IS ALL THE MORE MANDATORY FOR THE APPELLATE/REVISIONAL AUTHORITIES TO APPRECIATE THE REASONS FOR THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE REASONS FOR CONCLUSION REACHED IN A JUDICIAL ORDER SHALL CONTAIN IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER ITSELF. IN OTHER WORDS, REASON FOR THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED IN A JUDIC IAL/ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED BY WAY OF FILING ADDITI ONAL DOCUMENT OR AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE HIGHER FORUMS. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE 7 I.T.A. NO.389/MDS/15 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REGARDING ISSUES RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER. HENCE, IT SHOWS NON- APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T OYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION V. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC) HAD AN OC CASION TO CONSIDER AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WHEREIN THE APEX COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNE D ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAD DISPOSED OF THE PROCEEDINGS STATING THE PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS INITIATED IN THIS CASE UNDER SECTION 271C READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 ARE HEREBY DROPPED. ACCORDING TO THE HIG H COURT, THERE WAS NO BASIS INDICATED FOR DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS . THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO CERTAIN ASPECTS AND HELD THAT THE INITI ATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, 'THE I. T. ACT') WAS IMPERMISSIBLE WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE BACK GROUND OF THE MATERIALS PURPORTEDLY PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHAT THE HIGH COURT HAS DONE IS TO REQUIRE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A REASONED ORDER. THE HIGH COURT WA S OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT HAVE SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN REA SONINGS WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A CCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, ALL RELEVANT ASPECTS WERE PLACED FOR CONS IDERATION AND IF THE OFFICER DID NOT RECORD REASONS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FAULTED. WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE AT THI S STAGE. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT WHEN THE MATTER BE TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON REMAND, IT SHALL BE HIS DUTY TO TAKE INT O ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS INCLUDING THE MATERIALS , IF ANY, ALREADY PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND PASS A REASONED ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE PUNJAB &HARYANA HIGH COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE IN CIT V. SUNIL KUMAR GOEL [2005 ] 274 ITR 53. THE PUNJAB &HARYANA HIGH COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING T HE JUDGMENT OF 8 I.T.A. NO.389/MDS/15 THE CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH OF THE APEX COURT IN S.N.M UKHERJEE 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 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 9 I.T.A. NO.389/MDS/15 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 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. 10 I.T.A. NO.389/MDS/15 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 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. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO DISCLOSE THE REASONS FOR THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVA ILABLE ON RECORD 11 I.T.A. NO.389/MDS/15 SHALL BE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES TS OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH MAY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 29 TH MAY, 2015. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 /CIT, CHENNAI-9, CHENNAI-6 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.