ACIT, Lucknow V. M/s. U.P. Govt. Employees Welfare Corporation, Lucknow

ITA 414/LKW/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9208 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R RASTOGI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 260A; 12A; 10B; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI H. L. KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.414/LUC/10 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-2005 A.C.I.T., VS. M/S U.P. GOVT. EMPLOYEES RANGE-VI, WELFARE CORPORATION, LUCKNOW. 742, JAWAHAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, D. R. RESPONDENT BY: S/SHRI K. R. RASTOGI & SHUBHAM RASTOGI , C.A. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N. K. SAI PER N. K. SAI PER N. K. SAI PER N. K. SAINI: NI: NI: NI: THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/03/2010 OF CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APP EAL RELATES TO THE DELETION OF PENALTY OF `1,06,00,000/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/10/2004 DECLARING A LOSS OF `4,07,68,282/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26/12/2006 ON TOTAL INCOME OF `5,05,37,579/- BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: 2 1. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR SALARY `6,68,36,883/- 2. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR OTHER EXPENSES `2,40,62,602/- 3. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ` 4,06 ,876/- DISALLOWED. 2.1 BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LEARNED CIT (A) WHO SUSTAI NED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: 3. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR SALARY `1,47,17,683/- 4. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR OTHER EXPENSES `1,42,33,117/- 3. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ` 4,06 ,873/- DISALLOWED. 2.2 SINCE THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED PENALTY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO TH E SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ABOVE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE S WERE MADE BECAUSE OF NON MAINTENANCE OF PROPER DETAILS. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE SOCIETY WAS SUFFERING FROM ACUTE FINANCIAL PROBLE M AND BECAUSE OF NON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FROM U.P. GOVT., THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE THE PAYMENT OF SALARY AND EXPENSES AND THE ADDITIONS WE RE MADE BY DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE ON AD HOC / ESTIMATE BASIS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE BY STATIN G THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE ON 3 AD HOC BASIS BECAUSE THE DISALLOWANCES WERE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ERRONEOUSLY CLAIMED THE PROVISIONS ON ACC OUNT OF SALARY AND OTHER EXPENSES DESPITE BEING FULLY AWARE THA T NONE OF THE PROVISIONS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT, COULD BE CHARGE D TO THE PROFIT OF ANY ORGANIZATION. SIMILARLY THE DEPRECIATION HAD ALSO BEEN DISALLOWED SINCE CLAIMED WRONGLY BY THE ASSESSEE, THUS SUSTA INED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AN D THEREBY CONCEALED THE INCOME WHICH OTHERWISE WAS LEGITIMATEL Y AND LEGALLY DUE FOR TAXATION. HE ACCORDINGLY LEVIED THE PENAL TY OF `1,06,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO LEARNED CIT(A) AN D SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF ADDI TIONS MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND THAT THE PROVISION FOR EXPENSES OF `1, 42,33,117/- HAD BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO THE BILLS REMAINED UNPA ID BECAUSE OF THE SHORTAGE OF FUNDS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS A STATE GOVERNMENT OWNED SOCIETY AND IS SUFFERING F ROM ACUTE FINANCIAL CRISIS. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE EXPENSES WER E INCURRED THROUGH PROPER AUTHORIZATION AFTER DUE VERIFICATION BY OFFICERS OF THE U.P. STATE GOVERNMENT THROUGH DELEGATED POWER. THUS , IT CAN NOT BE HELD THAT THE EXPENSES WERE NOT GENUINE BECAUSE OF NON AVAILABILITY OF 4 LIQUID FUNDS, BILLS REMAINED UNPAID AND THE PROVISIONS WERE MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE PROV ISION FOR SALARY OF `1,47,17,683/- PERTAINED TO UNPAID SALARY OF THE SOCIETY WHICH COULD NOT BE PAID DUE TO WANT OF FUNDS. THE SALARY PAYMENT S WERE MADE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AFTER RECEIVING GRANT FROM GO VERNMENT, THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE PROVISION MAD E FOR SALARY FOR EMPLOYEES AS PER MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WAS NOT CORRECT AS THE SAME WAS THE EXPENDITURE OF THE PERIOD. IT WAS PL EADED THAT THE DEPRECIATION OF `4,06,873/- HAD BEEN PROPERLY SHOWN IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AS PER ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE AND THAT THE SOCIETY WAS REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT AND INCOME WAS COMPU TED ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE , THIS ADDITION HAD NO RELEVANCE FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME U/S 11 OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION HAD ALREADY BEEN ADDED WHILE COMPUTING THE FUNDS UTILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11 OF THE A CT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: (I) DECISION OF ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH B IN THE CASE OF U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. DY. C IT, RANGE-1 LUCKNOW FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 87-88. (II) DECISION OF ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH B IN THE CASE O F ASHOK GRIH UDYOG KENDRA (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, 121 TTJ (LUCKNO W) 979. (III) DECISION OF ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH B IN THE CASE OF STAR INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, 122 TTJ (LUCKNOW) 380 5 (IV) DECISION OF THE ITAT AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF H ARI OM KUMAR UMESH CHAND VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 124 TAXMAN 213 3.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED ON T HE GROUND THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS H AD BEEN UPHELD FULLY/PARTLY IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT AND TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE TWO SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT MERELY, BECAUSE THE ADDITIONS HAD BEEN CONFIRMED IN T HE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONC EALED ITS INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT (A) ONCE THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ONUS WAS ON HIM TO PR OVE THAT THE SAID ADDITION REPRESENTED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. TH E LEARNED CIT (A) POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE YEAR THE PROVISION FOR E XPENSES HAD BEEN MADE ONLY OF `1,52,91,450/- AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD ALLOWED ONE MONTHS PROVISION OF `10,58,333/-. SIMILARLY, PROVISIO N FOR SALARY SHOWN IN THIS YEAR INCLUDED THE PROVISION FOR PREVIOUS YEAR AMOUNTING TO `5,22,19,200/-. THUS, IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE PROVISION FOR THIS YEAR WAS ACTUALLY OF `2,32,84,678/- AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D ALLOWED ONE MONTH PROVISION WHICH AMOUNTED TO `86,66,995/-. AC CORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE NECESSAR Y DETAILS IN 6 REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF EXPENSES AND SALARY, THEREF ORE, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WERE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE NO DELIBERATE OR DISHONEST ATTEMPT TO RE TURN INCORRECT INCOME HAD BEEN FOUND. HE ACCORDINGLY DE LETED THE PENALTY. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 4. THE LEARNED D. R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT ( A) HAS PASSED A NON SPEAKING ORDER AND THAT HE HAD NOT DISCUSSED THE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DID NOT CONSIDER THIS FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, W HICH WERE NOT CONTESTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A), THEREFORE, THE INCOME WAS CONCEALED TO THE EXTENT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) DID NOT P OINT OUT HOW THE ADDITIONS MADE WERE NOT THE CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY LEV IED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN DELETING THE SAME. 5. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEA RNED CIT (A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRADING, PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT AND 7 BALANCE SHEET WAS FILED ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORT IN F ORM NO. 10B SHOWING THE UTILIZATION OF FUND. IN THE TRADING, PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE SALES, PURCHASES, O THER INCOME AND EXPENDITURES SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT A ND ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED THE DEFICIT FOR THE YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY BEING UNPAI D SALARY AND EXPENSES WERE SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD 'PROVISIONS'. THE T OTAL OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF SALARY AS ON 31.03.2004 WAS `7,5 5,03,878/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED I T AS 'PROVISION FOR SALARY' AND ALLOWED THE PROVISION FOR ONE MONTH SALARY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION O F `6,68,36,883/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPENING OUTSTANDING AND UNPAI D SALARY FOR THE YEAR. THE ADDITION FINALLY REMAINED AT `1,47,17,68 3/-. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF 'UNPAID EXPENSES' WHICH WAS FINALLY CONFIRMED AT `1,42,33,117/ -. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING, HAD NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SA LARY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND EXPENDITURES DEBITED IN THE TRADING, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR I.E. A. Y. 2007-08 ON RECEIVING THE 'GRANTS FROM U.P. STATE GOV ERNMENT' IN RESPECT OF OUTSTANDING SALARY DUES AND FURTHER FUNDS, ALL UNPAID SALARY AND OUTSTANDING EXPENSES SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD 'PROVISIO NS' WERE 8 PAID IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y . 2007-08 WAS ALSO MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN WHICH ALL THESE DETAILS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER AP PRECIATING THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PE NALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) DELETED THE PENALT Y BY STATING THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE T WO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT THE FINDING RECORD ED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE CONCLUSIVE IN THE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED CI T (A) IS PERFECTLY RIGHT BECAUSE MERE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT AND CONCLUSIVE TO LEVY THE PENALTY. HO WEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE DEALT EACH AND EVERY ADDITION AN D THEN CAME TO THE CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER THE SAID ADDITIONS WERE TH E CONCEALED INCOME BY WAY OF MAKING/FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME OR NOT. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A), WITHOUT DISCU SSING THE NATURE OF THE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIS-A-VIS THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HAD THROWN THE ENTIRE BURDEN ON THE SHOU LDERS OF THE 9 ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATE LY COMMITTED DEFAULT. IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS NOT A SPEAKING AND WELL REASONED ORDER BECAUSE T HERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON THE NATURE OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE NOT CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A). 6.1 IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE ORDER/JUDGMENT UN-SU PPORTED BY REASON IS NOT A JUDGMENT IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT IS ALSO TRUE T HAT THE REASONS ARE THE LINKS BETWEEN THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE CON CLUSION THEREAFTER BY THE COURT/APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN OUR VIEW THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE A S WELL AS FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER H E SHOULD HAVE MADE INDEPENDENT FINDINGS EITHER IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT PASSED A PROPER ORDER IN THE EYES OF LAW. AT T HIS STAGE, WE MAY REFER TO THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT THEMIS BIOSYN LTD. VS. J.C.I.T., (2000) 74 ITD 339 (AH D). THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH, WHILE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 HELD AS UNDER: 'THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ARE TO STATE THE POINTS ARISING IN THE APPEAL, THE DECISION OF THE 10 AUTHORITY THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. TH E UNDERLYING RATIONALE OF THE PROVISIONS IS THAT SUCH OR DERS ARE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL. SPEA KING ORDER WOULD OBVIOUSLY ENABLE A PARTY TO KNOW PRECISE POINTS DECIDED IN HIS FAVOUR OR AGAINST HIM. ABSENCE O F THE FORMULATION OF THE POINT FOR DECISION FOR WANT OF CL ARITY IN A DECISION UNDOUBTEDLY PUTS A PARTY IN QUANDARY. SECTIO N 250(6) EXPRESSLY EMBODIES THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUST ICE AND SUCH A PROVISION IS CLEARLY MANDATORY IN NATURE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) COULD NO T, THEREFORE, BE SUSTAINED.' 6.2 THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BE NCH IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 6.3 HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT V PALWAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. (2006) 284 ITR 153 HAS H ELD AS UNDER: 'EVERY JUDICIAL/QUASI JUDICIAL BODY / AUTHORITY MUS T PASS A REASONED ORDER WHICH SHOULD REFLECT THE APPLICATION O F MIND OF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO THE ISSUES / POINTS RAISED BEFORE IT. THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING REASONS IS AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE RULE O F LAW. IT INTRODUCES CLARIFY, CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION O F EXTRANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND MINIMIZES ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. ANOTHER REASON WHICH MAKES IT IMPERATIVE FOR QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES TO GIVE REASONS IS THAT THEIR ORDERS ARE NOT ONLY SUBJECT TO THE FIGHT OF THE AGGRIEVED PERSONS TO CHALL ENGE THEM BY FILING STATUTORY APPEAL AND REVISION BUT ALSO BY FILING WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTI TUTION. SUCH DECISIONS CAN ALSO BE CHALLENGED BY WAY OF APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE HIGH COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO ISSUE WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO Q UASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES / TRIBU NALS. 11 LIKEWISE IN APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT CAN NULLIFY SUC H ORDER / DECISION. THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW CAN B E EFFECTIVELY EXERCISED BY THE SUPERIOR COURTS ONLY IF T HE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE CONTAINS REASONS. IF SUCH ORDER IS CRYPTIC AND DEVOID OF REASONS, THE COURTS CAN NOT EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. 6.4 THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANGA LORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT AND ANOTHER (2005) 273 ITR 56 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'THOUGH IN AN ORDER OF AFFIRMATION IN AN APPEAL U/S 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 REPETITION OF THE REASONS ELABORATELY MAY NOT BE NECESSARY, THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED / POINTS URGED HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH. REASON S FOR AFFIRMATION HAVE TO BE INDICATED, THOUGH IN APPROPRIATE CASES THEY MAY BE BRIEF. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD : 'RECORDING OF REASONS IS A PART OF FAIR PROCEDURE. REA SONS ARE THE HARBINGER BETWEEN THE MIND OF THE MAKER OF THE DECISION IN THE CONTROVERSY AND THE DECISION OR CONCLU SION ARRIVED AT. THEY SUBSTITUTE SUBJECTIVITY WITH OBJECTI VITY. FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS AMOUNTS TO DENIAL OF JUSTICE. 6.5 AS WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PRESE NT CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT RECORDED ANY REASON IN SUPPORT OF HIS DE CISION, THEREFORE, THE FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS AMOUNTS TO DENI AL OF JUSTICE AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE AFORESAID CASE AND THE PRESENT CASE REQUIRES READJUDICATION AT TH E LEVEL OF LD. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, REMAND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 12 7. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FA CTS, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE LEARNED CIT (A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WI THIN FOUR MONTHS OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. (THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/0 1/2011) SD/. ( H. L. KARWA ) VICE PRESIDENT SD/. (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:07/01/2011 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR