Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 767-768 of 2005
PETITIONER:
M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works
RESPONDENT:
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore and Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/01/2005
BENCH:
Ruma Pal & Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the judgment rendered by
a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in appeals purported to be
under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). The
appeals were filed by the revenue questioning correctness of certain
conclusions arrived at by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore
Bench (in short the ‘Tribunal’) in appeals filed by the assessee as well as
the revenue.
The dispute relates to the assessment year 1995-96. The relevant factual
details have been noted in Civil Appeal No. 4232 of 2003 and other cases
(M. Janardhan Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax etc. etc.) disposed
of today, and are not repeated here. The assessee was described as A.O.P.-3
by the revenue authorities in the concerned assessment proceedings.
Questioning correctness of certain conclusion by the Tribunal, revenue had
preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court has held that the
Tribunal’s views in respect of Question Nos. (iii), (v) and (vii) as
formulated were not in order, and accordingly allowed the appeals filed by
the revenue in part. The basic issues which form the core dispute have been
dealt with in the appeals filed by the assessees and disposed of, as noted
supra, today.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conclusions of the
High Court have been arrived at without any discussion and reasons have not
been indicated as to why seal of approval was being put on the findings
recorded by the Tribunal.
Per contra, learned counsel for the revenue supported judgment of the High
Court. According to him, when views of Tribunal and first appellate
authority were being affirmed, there was no need to record reasons
separately.
So far as the issues covered by judgment in C.A. No. 4232 of 2003 etc. etc.
as noted above, are concerned, the order shall cover these appeals also.
In addition, question Nos. (iii), (v) and (vii) as noted in High Court’s
judgment are concerned, need to be adjudicated afresh. It is true in an
order of affirmation, repetition of reasons elaborately may not be
necessary. But even then the arguments advanced, points urged have to be
dealt with. Reasons for affirmation have to be indicated, though in
appropriate cases may be briefly stated.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure. Reasons are harbinger
between the mind of maker of the decision in the controversy and the
decision or conclusion arrived at. They substitute subjectivity with
objectivity. As observed in Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree,
(1974) L.C.R. 120, failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.
In the aforesaid background, we remit the matter to High Court to consider
question Nos. (iii), (v) and (vii) afresh along with other matters covered
by judgment in C.A. No. 4232 of 2003 etc. etc. disposed of today.
Appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.