TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 684
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing the appeal preferred by it in toto. [2.0] Facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under: That the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and packaging drinking water, pet performs, per bottles, moulds and mould spares. That the assessee submitted the return of income for the assessment year 200607 declaring total income of 2,30,600/. That later on the case was taken up for scrutiny assessment. That the Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment by making addition of Rs.1,22,88,377/as unaccounted expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The AO also treated the said share trading loss of Rs.9,91,673/as speculative loss under section 73 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of assessment passed by the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and by order dated 10.02.2010, the CIT(A) partly allowed the said appeal and modified the order passed by the AO with respect to addition of Rs.1,22,88,377/and sustained the addition to the extent of the balance amount came to be deleted. That the CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the AO with respect to treating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the AO, while passing the order of assessment, made addition of Rs.1,22,88,377/as unaccounted expenditure under section 69C of the Act, which came to be reduced by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.61,44,189/. In further appeal, the learned Appellate Tribunal has reduced the addition/sustained the addition of Rs.30 lac. While sustaining the addition of Rs.30 lac - partly allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee and dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue, from the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the learned ITAT has passed the impugned judgment and order by observing in para 8 as under: "8. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. Even though, the learned AR has reasoned out in various ways, he has not produced the actual and accurate working for the valuation of work in progress before the Revenue or before us. Further, to justify the assessee's claim that it has valued the work in progress on the basis of market value; the assessee has not submitted any valuation report. Therefore, the decision of the case; Sanjeev Woolen Mills vs. CIT, 279 ITR 434 rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing reasons in order. In the said decision, it is observed and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that requirement of recording reasons is one of the principles of natural justice. It is further observed and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that right to reasons is an indispensable part of sound judicial system. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 44 and 46 has observed as under: "44. This Court while deciding the issue in Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., placing reliance on its various earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp.34546, para 27) "27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng has not lost its virtue. All long judgments or orders are not great nor are brief orders always bad. What is required of any judicial decision is due application of mind, clarity of reasoning and focused consideration. A slipshod consideration or cryptic order or decision without due reflection on the issues raised in a matter may render such decision unsustainable. Hasty adjudication must be avoided. Each and every matter that comes to the court must be examined with the seriousness it deserves. In the case of Real Estate Agencies vs. State of Goa reported in (2012)12 SCC 170 while emphasizing the necessity of giving reasons by the Courts/Tribunals/Judiciary, it is held that, manner of reaching a decision and reasons for reaching such decisions are sacrosanct to judicial process. While emphasizing the need to pass a reasoned order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Certified Area Committee vs. Additional Director, Consolidation reported in (2002)10 SCC 87, has held as under: "The reasons are the flesh and blood of Judicial adjudication and such reasons must be shown in the orders which are liable ....