High Court sets aside ITAT order due to lack of attribution, orders fresh examination within six months.

The High Court found that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal failed to comply with the specific mandate from a previous order, as it verbatim lifted portions without attribution and lacked independent assessment. Disagreeing with the request to ignore these issues, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to the ITAT. The Court directed the appeals to be heard before a different Bench within six months for a fresh examination of all issues, emphasizing the need for a thorough review in line with the previous order.

---

---

Issues:
- Failure of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to adhere to the specific mandate issued by the High Court in a previous order.
- Allegation of lack of independent assessment by the ITAT.
- Verbatim lifting of portions without attribution in the impugned order.
- Request to ignore aberrations and proceed to decide on merits.
- Court's disagreement with the submission to ignore aberrations.
- Court's conclusion on the failure of the ITAT to satisfy the mandate.
- Setting aside the impugned order and restoring the appeals to the ITAT.
- Directions for listing the appeals before a different Bench and timeframe for final decision.

Analysis:

The High Court addressed the issue of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's failure to adhere to a specific mandate issued in a previous order. The Court framed a question regarding whether the ITAT failed to comply with the directions given by the High Court in a previous order. The Court noted that the ITAT had verbatim lifted portions from the Assessing Officer's order and the High Court's order without proper attribution. This lack of independent assessment was a critical concern raised by the Assessee's counsel. The Court referenced a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the importance of acknowledging borrowed words in a judgment. The Revenue contended that the Court should overlook these aberrations and proceed to decide on the merits, but the Court disagreed. The Court highlighted that the ITAT failed to consider all issues afresh as mandated, opting for a shortcut by reproducing portions without proper analysis.

The Court concluded that the ITAT's order did not satisfy the mandate set out in the previous order, emphasizing the need for a fresh examination of all issues and contentions. As a result, the Court answered the question in favor of the Assessee and set aside the impugned order, restoring the appeals to the ITAT. The Court directed the appeals to be listed before a different Bench and imposed a timeframe for a final decision to be made within six months from the date of the remand. This decision aimed to expedite the resolution of the ongoing litigation, acknowledging that it would be the third round of litigation in this case.

---