Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
The Appellate Tribunal held that an adjudicating authority cannot sustain directions issued in a cryptic order that merely reproduces rival submissions without findings on facts or law. Because the impugned order gave no reasons for allowing the application and did not show judicial application of mind, it was treated as a non-speaking order incapable of legal sustenance. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to hear both parties and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
The Appellate Tribunal held that an adjudicating authority cannot sustain directions issued in a cryptic order that merely reproduces rival submissions without findings on facts or law. Because the impugned order gave no reasons for allowing the application and did not show judicial application of mind, it was treated as a non-speaking order incapable of legal sustenance. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to hear both parties and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
