2014 (11) TMI 372 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms jurisdiction under Income-tax Act, stresses need for reasoning in assessment orders.

The Tribunal upheld the Administrative Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, finding that the assessing officer failed to ... Revision u/s 263 - Proceeding before the Administrative Commissioner is a judicial proceedings u/s 136 - Held that:- The proceeding before the Administrative Commissioner is a judicial proceedings u/s 136 of the Act - The judicial / administrative order shall contain the reasons for the conclusion in the order itself - the AO has not discussed anything in the assessment order - It is not known why the claim of the assessee for higher depreciation was allowed on the windmill - In the absence of discussion in the assessment order, the revisional/appellate authority cannot appreciate the reason for the decision taken by the lower authority - Since the AO has not discussed anything in the assessment order regarding the depreciation on the windmill which shows the non-application of mind to the material available on record – as decided in Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Sunil Kumar Goel [2005 (1) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court] - an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court under article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power - a distinction has been drawn between ordinary courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the stand point of policy and expediency. The then AO (Shri Bhopal Singh), the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Muzaffarnagar and Shri Kundan Misra, the then Commissioner of Income Tax, Muzaffarnagar who passed the order dated 25.1.2008 have abdicated their duties - The Court in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be a mute spectator - Such actions on the part of the department not only bring disrepute to the department but also encourage the dishonest assessees and promotes the nefarious activities which not only causes loss to revenue but also promotes dishonesty – the AO has not applied his mind to the material available on record – the Tribunal is of the opinion that the Commissioner has rightly exercised his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act – Decided against assessee. Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the Administrative Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.2. Examination of the assessing officer's application of mind and conduct of proper enquiry regarding depreciation on windmill and associated components.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Administrative Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act:The appellant contested the Administrative Commissioner's order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, which found the assessing officer had not applied his mind or conducted proper enquiry regarding the depreciation on the windmill and associated components like the copper wound transformer and other electrical items in the DP yard. The appellant argued that the assessing officer had examined all details and allowed the depreciation claim, indicating that the windmill and transformer were composite and should not be segregated. The appellant cited decisions from the Chennai and Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal to support their claim.Conversely, the respondent argued that the assessment order was silent about the depreciation on the windmill, indicating a lack of discussion or enquiry by the assessing officer. The Administrative Commissioner, therefore, rightly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 due to the absence of application of mind and proper enquiry.The Tribunal emphasized that judicial and administrative orders must be speaking orders, reflecting the application of mind to the materials on record. The Tribunal referred to the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel and the Supreme Court's decision in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, which underscored the necessity of recording reasons in such orders to ensure fairness and minimize arbitrariness.2. Examination of the assessing officer's application of mind and conduct of proper enquiry regarding depreciation on windmill and associated components:The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer had not discussed the reasons for allowing higher depreciation on the windmill in the assessment order, indicating non-application of mind to the material on record. The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Toyota Motor Corporation vs Commissioner of Income-tax and the Allahabad High Court's judgment in the case of M/s Fateh Chand Charitable Trust, to highlight the importance of recording reasons in administrative and judicial orders.The Tribunal found that the assessing officer's failure to record reasons for the decision rendered the assessment order deficient. Consequently, the Administrative Commissioner was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 to ensure proper enquiry and reasoning in the assessment process.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the assessing officer had not applied his mind to the material on record, and the Administrative Commissioner rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal directed that the assessing officer, while completing the assessment consequent to the Commissioner's order, should make proper enquiry and record independent reasoning without being influenced by the Administrative Commissioner's observations. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 14th August 2014.