TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roneously remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) though it was obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to decide the matter being the final authority of facts." 2. The facts which are essential to be stated are that for the assessment year 1998-99, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was served by affixture on the last date of the period of limitation, i.e., on March 31, 2005. In pursuance of the notice, the appellant filed its regular return before the Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1) who had the territorial jurisdiction over the place where the assessee was residing. In the course of the assessment proceeding, the assessee filed objection against the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot the basis of the reopening. 5. The Tribunal, as set forth, heard the matter at length and delivered the judgment on August 20, 2008, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had not passed a speaking order. 6. Questioning the order passed by the Tribunal, it is submitted by Mr.Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the appellant, that the Tribunal has fallen into grave error by holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had passed a cryptic and non-speaking order though it was obligatory on its part to deliver a judgment on the merits as the same was argued at length. It is urged by him that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evincible from the order, though had the benefit of paper book of more than hundred pages, referred to the grounds raised by the Revenue in paragraph 2 and the ground urged by the assessee in paragraph 3 and, thereafter, noted certain contentions of both the sides and stated thus: "6. After hearing the rival submissions, and on a careful perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not passed any speaking order in annulling the order passed under section 143(3)/147. The relevant observation/contents of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at paragraph No. 2 are as under: `The facts of this case is that the appellant was filing reruns of income before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase on the merits, if required. We order accordingly." 9. In our considered opinion, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had passed a reasoned order while the Tribunal has passed a cryptic order. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. Asst. CIT [2008] 220 CTR 563 (Bom); [2009] 317 ITR 433, wherein it has been held as under (page 435): "6. It is needless to mention that the appellate authority being the final authority of facts it is incumbent upon it to appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below and assign its own reasons as to why he disagrees with the reasons and findings of the authority below. Merely because the Tribunal happened to be an ....