Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax
2004 Latest Caselaw 1287 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the order dated August 23, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in I. T. A. No. 6331/ Delhi of 1996 for the assessment year 1993-94.

2. The questions framed by the court are as under :

"1. Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and hold that the assessed had suppressed its production of tin containers ?

2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs. 1,74,58,165 representing alleged unaccounted sales ?"

3. The answer to question No. 2 would be dependent on the answer to question No. 1.

4. The order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which is produced at annexure 4 in Appeal No. 8 of 1996-97 decided on September 30, 1996, is in detail. We have also perused the order made by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal, in para. 13, while reversing the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), observed as under :

"13. We have examined the rival submissions. The Assessing Officer has methodically pointed out flaws in the assessed's accounts as a result of the search in which production records were seized. In our opinion, the assessed has not been able to answer satisfactorily to any of the queries raised by the Assessing Officer. We are, therefore, in agreement with the Assessing Officer that this is a fit case for rejection of account books and the provisions of Section 145(2) are clearly applicable to the facts of the case. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is set aside and the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,74,58,165 is upheld by us. The appeal of the Department succeeds on the first ground."

5. It is true that the Tribunal has referred to the submissions made by counsel as well as the departmental representative. However, while reversing the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) no reasons have been given by the Tribunal. If a detailed reasoned order is made by the appellate officer and the Tribunal is in agreement therewith, then one may say that no detailed discussions are required but, when the Tribunal is reversing the order made by the appellate officer, then detailed reasons are required to be given particularly when the decision of the Tribunal is considered to be final on the facts.

6. In order to ensure that there may not be prejudice to either side, we are not discussing the merits of the case as there is consensus that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. It is in view of this that we are allowing this appeal with the direction to the Tribunal to hear the matter afresh in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. The questions are not required to be answered in view of the aforesaid course of action.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the parties state that the matter may be fixed before the Tribunal for appearance of counsel on December 27, 2004.

Accordingly counsel for the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on December 27, 2004.