2005 (10) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not perverse inasmuch as firstly it does not consider the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and secondly, the impugned order is not at all a reasoned and speaking order, thirdly, the impugned order is incoherent and vague and fourthly it does not deal with all the grounds raised challenging various additions on the merits?" In so far as the assessee's challenge to issuance of authorisation for search and legality of search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is concerned, it is not necessary to enter into any discussion as regards the same in this appeal in the light of the fact that a sep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fter giving reasonable opportunity to both the sides to present their case. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has very strenuously supported the impugned order of the Tribunal. As can be seen from impugned order of the Tribunal in paragraphs Nos. 1 and 2 of the order the facts regarding the assessment being framed have been set out; paragraph No. 3 reproduces the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, paragraph No. 4 refers to submissions made by the Departmental Representative. The finding of the Tribunal, if it can be termed to be a finding, commences from paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order and the Tribunal reproduces the relevant extract of the order of the Commissioner of Incom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntions of the rival parties before it, but the issues which arise for its consideration and the reasons for deciding the issues one way or the other. The present is a case where it cannot be stated that the Tribunal has followed the well settled position while discharging its duty. The Tribunal has singularly failed in its duty. The order is not only cursory but if one may say so, is not an order at all. In the case of S.J. and S.P. Family Trust v. Deputy CIT (Assessment) [2005] 277 ITR 557 (Guj) the court was constrained to observe: "Having heard the parties, and in the light of the facts narrated hereinbefore, it is apparent that the Tribunal has made short shrift of its duty to adjudicate. This court has time and again, reiterated the....