TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Challan was wrongly deposited on account Tax on Regular Assessment instead of Self Assessment. That in the process of amending the challan, the filing of the appeal got delayed by 69 days, which is purely due to technical reasons. Hence, it was requested by the assessee that the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. The DR opposed the application for condonation of delay but did not raise any objection towards the fact and explanation offered by the assessee as a reason for delay that the challan of appeal fees was wrongly deposited on account of (400) Tax on Regular Assessment instead of (300) self assessment and later the challan was duly amended by the officer concerned and in doing so, the filing of appeal got del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sharma. The AO rejected above explanation of the assessee and held that the assessee has consented for determining the long term capital gain (LTCG) on his part to be added to his total income and the AO made impugned addition. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) which was also dismissed with following conclusions and findings:- "3.3 The facts have been considered. It is seen that the appellant did not approach this matter with clean hands since details of the impugned transactions could be known to the ld. AO only though other departmental channels. Furthermore, the claim of exemption from LTCG u/s 54F of the Act could also not be substant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant part of the assessment order, submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee with a cryptic and brief order without giving any finding and conclusion on the contentions and submissions of the assessee. 9. Replying to the above, ld. DR submitted that the assessee himself consented for determining the long term capital gains (LTCG) to be added back as his total income, therefore, the assessee cannot take a deviated or alternate stand. The DR fairly accepted that the CIT(A) has not given any detailed finding and conclusion on the submissions and explanation evidence submitted by the assessee during first appellate proceedings. 10. In view of above rival submissions, at the outset, we observe that the CIT(A) has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial and quasi-judicial authorities and at the same time checks the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant consideration and minimizes arbitrariness in the decision making process. 12. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Vodafone Essar Ltd. vs DRP 196 Taxman 423 (Del) held that when a quasi-judicial authority deals with a list, it is obligatory on its part to ascribe cogent and germane reasons in the adjudication order as the same is the heart and soul of the order and the same also facilitates appreciation when the order is called in question before the superior forum. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that a "decision" does not merely mean the "conclusion" but it embraces within its fold the reason....