TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in IT(SS)A No. 77/De1/2012 and IT(SS)A No. 85/Del/2012 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 and Block Period. 3. Admit. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the following question is framed for determination: "Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') fail to adhere to the specific mandate issued to it by this Court in the previous order dated 25th November, 2013 in CIT v. Arun Malhotra (2014) 363 ITR 195(Del)?" 5. The background facts of the present case have been set-out in considerable detail in the previous order of this Court in CIT v. Arun Malhotra (supra) and need not be repeated in extenso. While setting aside the previous order of the ITAT dated 5th August 20008, this Court directed as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Assessee as well as Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the Revenue have referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49(SC), where one of the contentions of the Revenue in challenging the order of the Madras High Court was that the judgment under challenge "had merely plagiarized substantial portions from the order of the Commissioner and Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion and no independent assessment on the questions of law that arose for consideration, had been made." Although the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, it observed: "We feel that quoting from an order of some authority particularly a specialized one cannot per-se be faulted as this pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It has chosen to adopt a shortcut by verbatim reproducing the portions of the order of the assessment order or the order of this Court whether for the purposes of setting out the facts or even the reasoning and conclusion. It is one thing the ITAT to quote from an order of the AO or the CIT (A) and then explain whether the ITAT agreed with or differed from the said portion. It is another to simply incorporate into the order those very words and passages without any attribution to the source leaving the reader wondering if that could be the actual reasoning of the ITAT. The present impugned order of the ITAT falls in the latter category. 12. Looking at it from any point of view, the Court is unable to accept the impugned order of the ITAT ....