THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. MS SUBARNREKHA COAL COMPLEX PRIVATE LIMITED

T.A./50/2019

AI Insights

The case involves multiple tax appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna against M/s Subarnrekha Coal Complex Private Limited concerning the assessment of unaccounted income from coal sales. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues. The core of the dispute arose from a search and seizure operation conducted by the CBI, which allegedly uncovered incriminating materials. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had earlier dismissed the Revenue's appeals, leading to the current proceedings in the High Court. The High Court found that the Tribunal had not adequately considered the implications of the CBI's findings and the external inputs provided by the CBI, leading to the decision to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 728238 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Garg Brother Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No.2519/Kol/2017, Arulvelu and Another v. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and Another [(2009) 10 SCC 206], Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Others [(1999) 2 SCC 10], H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum Assessing Authority, Karnal and Others v. M/s Gopi Nath & Sons and Others [1992 Supp (2) SCC 312], Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors [(2014) 5 SCC 75]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MAHENDRA CHOUDHARY; DEVESH PODDAR
• Assessee Lawyers: KUMAR VAIBHAV
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Income tax settlement commission; Search and seizure; Unaccounted income
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 153A; 133A; 260A; 250(6); 132(1); 132(4); 245C; 153A/143(3)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 -------- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna having its office at Central Revenue Building, 3rd Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, PO & PS-Patna, District-Patna. … … Appellant/Appellant -Versus- M/s Subarnrekha Coal Complex Private Limited, having its office at 193 Bishnu Residency, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, PO & PS – Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700040. … … Respondent/Respondent With Tax Appeal No. 50 of 2019 -------- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna having its office at Central Revenue Building, 3rd Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, PO & PS-Patna, District-Patna. … … Appellant/Respondent -Versus- M/s Subarnrekha Coal Complex Private Limited, having its office at 193 Bishnu Residency, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, PO & PS – Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700040. … … Respondent/Appellant With Tax Appeal No. 51 of 2019 -------- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna having its office at Central Revenue Building, 3rd Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, PO & PS-Patna, District-Patna. … … Appellant/ Respondent -Versus- M/s Subarnrekha Coal Complex Private Limited, having its office at 193 Bishnu Residency, PO & PS – Netaji Nagar, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Kolkata-700040. … … Respondent/ Appellant With Tax Appeal No. 52 of 2019 -------- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna having its office at Central Revenue Building, 3rd Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, PO & PS-Patna, District-Patna. … … Appellant/Appellant -Versus- M/s Subarnrekha Coal Complex Private Limited, having its office at 193 Bishnu Residency, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, PO & PS – Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700040. Page 2 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters … … Respondent/Respondent With Tax Appeal No. 53 of 2019 -------- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna having its office at Central Revenue Building, 3rd Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, PO & PS-Patna, District-Patna. … … Appellant/Appellant -Versus- M/s Subarnrekha Coal Complex Private Limited, having its office at 193 Bishnu Residency, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, PO & PS – Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700040. … … Respondent/Respondent --------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Mahendra Kr. Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Devesh Poddar, Advocate --------- Order No.41 : dated 26th June, 2024 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J : 1. All the aforesaid appeals have been directed to be heard together since common issues are involved, hence, the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are directed against the common order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench at Ranchi in IT(SS)A No.08,09 /Ran/2018 and IT(SS)A of Nos. 12,13 & 14/Ran/2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents company(M/s Page 3 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters Subarnrekha Coal Complex Private Limited) and dismissed the appeals preferred by the Revenue. 3. The brief common facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the memo of instant appeals, which are required to be enumerated, read as under: - It is the case of the appellant that the Respondent, being an Assessee under the Income Tax Act, is engaged in the business of trading in coal. 4. In pursuance of Warrant of Authorisation issued by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Patna, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the business and residential premises. This search and seizure was part of Mega search conducted in Madhu Koda Group of cases. 5. The search and seizure operation was conducted different dates under Section 132 (1) of the IT Act in the office premises of the respondent Assessee located at IC, Galaxy apartment, Bistupur, Jamshedpur. Subsequent to the search and seizure operation, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was also conducted in the factory premises of the Respondent Company located at Naini, Allahabad. 6. Accordingly, notice under Section 153 (A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the Respondent Company to furnish return of income within 30 days of service of notice. Page 4 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters However, the Respondent Company belatedly submitted copy of the return filed u/s 153A of the Act showing total loss. 7. Subsequently, the Respondent company filed an application under Section 245C of the Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission declaring therein additional income by adopting profit rate of 10% or 15 % on account of unaccounted income earned on sale of coal supplied by Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), to the Respondent company during the different assessment year under consideration. Since the proceedings before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission stood abated, a statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued along with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. 8. Thereafter the assessment proceedings continued and after going through the facts on record, it was established that the Respondent Company was not manufacturing any soft coke/ smokeless fuel and had sold entire coal lifted from BCCL in the open market and the said sales remained unaccounted into the books of account of the Respondent Company. 9. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer, instead of 10% or15 %, estimated the profit @ 40% of unaccounted sale as additional income of the Respondent company for different assessment year. Further some amount was added to the Page 5 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters total income of the Respondent as unexplained investment on account of unaccounted purchase of coal. 10. The final assessment order u/s 153A/143(3) was passed on 28.06.2013 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Ranchi, 11. The Respondent preferred an appeal against the said assessment order, dated 28.06.2013, before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 Patna. 12. The said appeal was registered and the Learned CIT (Appeals), vide its order dated 05.07.2018, partly allowed the appeal of the Respondent and reduced the estimate of profit @40% to 20% and also reduced total income of the Respondent as unexplained investment on account of unaccounted purchase of coal. 13. Being aggrieved with the said order, dated 05.07.2018, passed by the learned CIT (Appeals), the Appellant as well as respondent herein preferred appeals before the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi. 14. The learned ITAT, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, vide its common order dated 20.02.2019 passed in IT(SS)A No.08,09/Ran/2018 has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents company (M/s Subarnrekha Coal Complex Private Limited) and dismissed the appeals preferred by the Revenue in IT(SS)A of Nos. 12,13 & 14/Ran/2018. Page 6 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters 15. It is evident from the factual aspect that in pursuance of Warrant of Authorisation issued by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Patna, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the business and residential premises of Manohar Lal Paul Group. This search and seizure was part of Mega search conducted in Madhu Koda Group of cases. 16. As per the factual aspect, a search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the office premises of the respondent Assessee located at IC, Galaxy apartment, Bistupur, Jamshedpur. 17. Subsequent to the search and seizure operation, a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act was also conducted. Consequent upon the search and seizure operation, a show cause notice was issued, in turn thereof, statement recorded on oath under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act was filed disclosing therein the undisclosed income of Rs.65 crore in this group of cases. 18. Further, in reply to question no.21 of the statement the breakup of earning of undisclosed income of Rs.65 crore had also been stated wherein an amount of Rs.48 crores had been disclosed as undisclosed income earned by the assesses during the financial years relevant to the assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11. Page 7 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters 19. The Assessing Officer has considered the factual aspect and based upon the consideration given on the defence submitted on behalf of the assesse, has passed the order. 20. The said order was carried to the appeal by preferring appeal under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellate authority has partly allowed the appeal by directing the estimate of profit at 20% instead of 40% on unaccounted sales. 21. The assessee has preferred appeal before the learned Tribunal on the ground that estimate of profit should be at 10% instead of 20% as passed by commissioner in order dated 05.07.2018. Moreover, appellant revenue as well prefer the appeal before Tribunal. 22. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against which these appeals have been filed. Argument advanced on behalf of appellant 23. Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order :- (i) The learned Tribunal has not considered the fact about the implication of CBI raid conducted on the premises leading to filing of the criminal cases. The Assessing Officer has taken into consideration in the order by making Page 8 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters reference of search and seizure conducted by the CBI. The Assessing Officer, based upon the material found in course of search and seizure by the CBI, has passed the final order of assessment. The said order has been refused to be interfered with by the appellate authority but the learned Tribunal has dismissed the order by applying the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Garg Brother Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No.2519/Kol/2017. The ground has been taken that merely the paragraphs of the judgment have been referred while declining to interfere with the impugned order without considering the applicability of the said judgment in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is mechanical and, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law. (ii) The issue of implication of tax evasion as has been found by the CBI in course of conducting search and seizure has not been appreciated at all by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is perverse. (iii) When the CBI has conducted and found incriminating materials then it was required by the appellate authority to consider the same but having not done so, the error has been committed and, as such, on this ground also, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Page 9 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters 24. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. Argument advanced on behalf of Respondent 25. Per contra, Mr. Mahendra Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has defended the order passed by the learned Tribunal first by raising the issue of maintainability. 26. It has been submitted that in view of the fact that there is no external input by pointing out any infirmity in the order of Assessing Officer or the appellate authority or the learned Tribunal which cannot be allowed to be questioned on the garb of any input if found by the CBI. 27. Here, as per the policy decision of the Income Tax Department as contained in Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 as amended by Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, no appeal will lie against the order passed by the learned Tribunal if the quantum of revenue is less than rupees one crore. 28. Herein, the quantum of revenue is less than rupees one crore and hence, the appeal itself is not maintainable. 29. The learned counsel, in addition to issue of maintainability, has argued that the input if any by the CBI cannot govern the assessment already made by the Page 10 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters competent authority, i.e., the Assessing Officer which has attained finality up to the level of the learned Tribunal. 30. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, needs no interference. Analysis 31. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the factual aspect as also the finding recorded by the authorities including the learned Tribunal. 32. The issue of maintainability has been raised based upon the policy decision that if the amount involved in the dispute is less than rupees one crore, no appeal will lie before the High Court against the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 33. Since the issue of maintainability is the issue and, as such, this Court is of the view that first the issue of maintainability needs to be decided before entering into the merit of the case. Issue of Maintainability 34. The issue of maintainability has been agitated on the ground of a policy decision which provides that if the amount of revenue involved is less than rupees one crore then no appeal will lie before the High Court against the order passed by the Tribunal under the provision of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for ready reference, the aforesaid provision of policy decision is being referred hereunder as :- Page 11 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters “As a step towards further management of litigation, it has been decided by the Board that monetary limits for filing of appeals in income-tax cases be enhanced further through amendment in Para 3 of the Circular mentioned above and accordingly, the table for monetary limits specified in Para 3 of the Circular shall read as follows: Sl. No. Appeals/SLP in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000 2. Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000” 35. It is evident from the aforesaid policy decision that if the quantum of amount is found to be less than rupees one crore, no appeal will lie against the order passed by the learned Tribunal but the said restriction is subject to one exception that if there is external input, then in such circumstances, irrespective of the quantum of amount involved, the appeal will lie before the High Court. 36. The learned counsel for the Revenue-appellant, has submitted that here the external input is available, reason being that the CBI had conducted raid in the premises of the assessee and found incriminating materials. Therefore, even though quantum of amount is less than rupees one crore but since there is external input having been gathered by the CBI in course of investigation, it has got bearing with the issue, hence, the appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will be maintainable. 37. While on the other hand, Mr. Mahendra Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent, has submitted Page 12 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters that the amount is less than rupees one crore, hence, the instant appeal is not maintainable. 38. This Court has heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties on the issue of maintainability. 39. This Court, in order to decide the issue of maintainability, is required to consider the policy decision based upon which the argument has been advanced that the appeal is not maintainable after the order having been passed by the learned Tribunal. 40. There is no dispute about the fact as has been provided in the said policy decision that the appeal in the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will not be entertained if the quantum of amount of revenue as per the assessment is less than rupees one crore. But the said restriction is subject to condition as under Clause 10 of Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 as quoted and referred hereinbelow that even though the amount of revenue involved is less than rupees one crore but there is external input having incriminating material, then the appeal will lie irrespective of the quantum of the amount involved in the assessment, for ready reference the relevant provision is being quoted hereunder as :- \"10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less Page 13 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect: (a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge, or (b) Where Board's order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where addition relates to undisclosed foreign income/undisclosed foreign assets (including financial assets)/undisclosed foreign bank account. (e) Where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). (f) Cases where prosecution has been filed by the Department and is pending in the Court.\" 41. This Court is proceeding to examine as to whether there is any external input available in the facts so as to maintain the instant appeal in view of exception to the policy decision as contained in Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 as amended by Letter dated 20.08.2018. 42. It is evident from the factual aspect that the CBI had conducted the raid on 02.02.2010 and incriminating material has been said to be found as would be evident from paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant. 43. The fact about CBI raid in the premises of the assessee has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent assessee, therefore, when the fact about CBI raid Page 14 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters is not in dispute and some incriminating material has been said to be recovered in course of search and seizure made by the CBI, then this Court is of the view the ground of external input as is being agitated on behalf of the Revenue, cannot be said to have no foundation. 44. This Court since has come to the conclusion that the external input is there claimed to be gathered by the CBI in course of search and seizure and, as such, the restriction clause as per the aforesaid policy decision of not maintaining the appeal if the amount of assessment is less than rupees one crore as under the aforesaid policy decision cannot apply in such circumstances. 45. In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the instant appeals are maintainable and accordingly, all the appeals are held to be maintainable. 46. The fact about search and seizure by the CBI is not disputed as per material available on record which finds mention even in the order passed by the Assessing Officer as under paragraph 3, for ready reference, the aforesaid paragraph is being referred hereunder as :- “Consequent upon search and seizure operation in the residential and various office and factory premises of Manohar Paul group of cases, Shri Mrinal Kanti Paul, one of the sons of Shri Manohar Lal Paul, in reply to question number 20 of the statement recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) of the I.T.Act on 18/02/2010 had disclosed undisclosed income of Page 15 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters Rs. 65 Crore in this group of cases. Further in reply to question number 21 of the statement the break- up of earning of undisclosed income of Rs. 65 Crore had also been stated wherein an amount of Rs. 48 crores had been disclosed as undisclosed income earned by the assessee during the financial years relevant to the assessment years 2004-05 2 2010- 11. In the statement on oath recorded during the course of search and seizure operation, undisclosed investment out of the undisclosed income in various companies had also been stated. The statement given by Sri Mrinal Kanti Paul had been approved and agreed by Shri Manohar Lal Paul and his other sons, Sri Tushar Kanti Paul and Sri Tarun Kanti Paul. However, through an Affidavit dated 26/02/2010 Sri Mrinal Kanti Paul retracted from the statement given on 18/02/2010 u/s. 132(4) of the L.T.Act declaring undisclosed income earned by them. Further, during the course of post search investigation Sri Mrinal Kanti Paul, Sri Tushar Kanti Paul and Sri Tarun Kanti Paul, three sons of Shri Manohar Lal Paul, submitted a written submission on 02/08/2010 wherein they have given a yearwise break up of earning of undisclosed income and its investment in different companies. This break up is for Rs. 65 crores disclosed / 132(4) of the L.T.Act but the break up does not tally with the break up given during the course of statement given u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act. In the written submission filed on 02/08/2010, an amount of Rs. 14 crore has been disclosed as undisclosed income earned by the assessee company during the assessment year 2009-10.” 47. This Court, on perusal of the order passed either by the Assessing Officer or by the appellate authority or by the learned Tribunal, has found that there is no consideration of the search and seizure conducted by the CBI wherein the Page 16 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters Revenue has claimed that incriminating material leading to criminality has been found. Therefore, this Court is of the view so far as the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and appellate authority are concerned, that non-consideration of issue of CBI raid amounts to perversity. 48. It requires to refer the definition of perversity which has been taken note of in the judgment rendered in Arulvelu and Another v. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and Another [(2009) 10 SCC 206] at paragraph 27, which is quoted hereunder: - 27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn. “Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.” 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn. “Perverse.—A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.” 49. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in yet another judgment rendered in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Page 17 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters Others [(1999) 2 SCC 10] has held under paragraph 9 and 10 which reads as under: “9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of „guilt‟ is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. 10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and - 16 - no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with.” 50. Further, the meaning of “perverse” has been examined in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum Assessing Authority, Karnal and Others v. M/s Gopi Nath & Sons and Others [1992 Supp (2) SCC 312] wherein, at paragraph 7, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “7. In the present case, the stage at and the points on which the challenge to the assessment in judicial review was raised and entertained was not appropriate. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in constituting itself into a court of appeal against the assessment. While it was open to the respondent to have raised and for the High Court to have considered whether the denial of relief under the proviso to Section 39(5) was proper or not, it was not open to the High Court to reappreciate the primary or perceptive facts which were otherwise within the domain of the fact-finding authority under the statute. The question Page 18 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters whether the transactions were or were not sales exigible to sales tax constituted an exercise in recording secondary or inferential facts based on primary facts found by the statutory authorities. But what was assailed in review was, in substance, the correctness as distinguished from the legal permissibility of the primary or perceptive facts themselves. It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law.” 51. The law is well settled that when the order suffers from perversity, the same is to be quashed for the purpose of consideration of the issue agitated by giving specific finding to that effect.Thus, it is evident that the perversity means if a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. 52. The learned Tribunal has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter, rather, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue by relying upon an order passed by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Garg Brother Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A. No.2519/Kol/2017. 53. The law is also well settled that the order if is being passed by a quasi-judicial authority, the same is to be based upon a cogent and valid reason on consideration of the Page 19 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters factual aspect as also the applicability of the judgment passed by one or the other forum. 54. The consideration of the judgment is having paramount consideration in view of the fact that any judgment or order passed by any court of law or forum has got no universal application, reference in this regard be made to the Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75, wherein at paragraph 47 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: 47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.” 55. This Court, adverting to the order so passed by the learned Tribunal, has found that merely by making reference of various paragraphs of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in Garg Brother Pvt. Ltd., the learned Tribunal has passed the order by allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein. 56. This Court, therefore, is of the view that there is no consideration of vital aspect of the matter regarding the availability of the incriminating materials as per the Revenue. Moreover, the issue of search and seizure by the CBI has not Page 20 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters has been taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer appellate authority as well as by Tribunal. 57. We have not found from the order passed by the learned Tribunal regarding consideration of the aforesaid factual aspect, rather, based upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in Garg Brother Pvt. Ltd., the learned Tribunal has passed the order dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellant. 58. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that while applying the judgment, its applicability must have been considered by referring the factual aspect and by applying the said judgment in the facts of the present case but no such endeavour has been taken. 59. Further, the issue of incriminating material having been said to be collected in course of search and seizure made by the CBI has also remained unconsidered. 60. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the vital issues of the implication of recovery of alleged incriminating material in course of CBI raid has not been considered and, as such, the order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal needs to be interfered with. 61. As such, the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority is held to be perverse and are fit to be set aside. Page 21 Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2019 & Batch Matters 62. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. 63. This Court, is of the view that the matter needs to be remitted before the learned Tribunal for consideration of the issue afresh, particularly, the incriminating material alleged to be collected in course of search and seizure by the CBI. 64. The learned Tribunal is directed to decide the said issue preferably within a period of four months by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and also by going through the relevant records. 65. The parties are at liberty to produce the additional record, if any, for appreciation of the issue in accordance with law. 66. Accordingly, all the appeals stand disposed of with the observation made hereinabove. 67. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Birendra/A.F.R. "