2023 (7) TMI 1285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Annexure P/6), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner dated 05.09.2022 (Annexure P/4) was rejected by the respondent No.3. 2. In the said application, the petitioner apart from other reliefs also prayed for not insisting to take 20% of the demand and grant complete stay without any deposit. In support of such prayer, the petitioner in his detailed application (running in 16 pages) reproduced the enabling provision i.e. Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also cited various judgments to show the manner in which power vested under Section 220(6) of the Act can be exercised. 3. Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention against the impugned order dated 03.1.2022 (Annexure P/6)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... why stand taken by the petitioner was not treated to be trustworthy by the respondent No.3. The reasons are held to be heart beat of conclusions. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. 9. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial function/order. The relevant portion reads as under:- "47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010 it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subjec....