AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (5) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income-tax, Patiala, whereby revision, petitions filed by the petitioner under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, were dismissed by a common order. 3. The claim of the petitioner was that the interest entitlement of the petitioner under section 244(1A)/214(1A) of the Act has not been worked out properly by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Asstt.), Patiala. The petition filed by the assessee against the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, by passing a sketchy and non-speaking order. Though, the assessee at the time of hearing, while referring to a series of judgments, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xercise of that power is subject to the jurisdiction of this court under article 136 of the Constitution, we fail to see how the power of this court can be effectively exercised, if reasons are not given by the Central Government in support of its order." 6. Another Constitution Bench of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1606, considered the question whether, while exercising revisional power under section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, read with rules 54 and 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the Central Government was required to give reasons in support of its decision and held (page 1610) : "The decisions of the Tribunals in India are subject to the supe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just." 9. In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers' Union, AIR 1973 SC 2758, the hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on the ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4 SCC 594 ; AIR 1990 SC 1984, a Constitution Bench reviewed various judicial precedents on the subject and observed (page 1995) : "The decisions of this court deferred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this court is more in line with that of the American courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this court under article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under article 226 and the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution. These courts have the power under the said provisions to quash by certiorari a quasi-judicial order made by an administrative officer and this power of review can be effectively exercised only if the order is a speaking order. In the absence of any reasons in support of the order, the said courts cannot examine the correctness of the order under review. The High Court and the Supreme Court would be powerless to interfere so as to keep the administrative officer within the limits of the law. The result would be that the power of judicial review would be stultified and no redress being available to the citizen, there would be insidious encouragement to arbitrarine....