SC laid down Guidelines as how judgements should be written

JCIT Vs Saheli Leasing & Industries (Supreme Court)

The assessee filed a Nil return after claiming depreciation. The AO disallowed depreciation but still assessed the total income at Rs. Nil. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on the dis allowance which was deleted by the Tribunal on the ground that as the returned income and the assessed income was Nil, penalty could not be levied. The department filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed on the basis that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be levied where the returned and assessed income were Nil.

On further appeal by the Revenue, HELD allowing the same:

(i) The High Court has dealt with the appeal in a most casual manner. The order is not only cryptic but does not even remotely deal with the arguments projected by the Revenue before it. It is unfortunate that the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court from time to time as to how judgements/ orders are to be written are not being adhered to. It is true that brevity is an art but brevity without clarity is likely to enter into the realm of absurdity, which is impermissible. This is reflected in the impugned order. Detailed guidelines laid down as to how judgements should be written;

(ii) On merits, in view of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health 304 ITR 308 (SC) (which overruled Virtual Soft Systems 289 ITR 83 SC), penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable even if the assessment is at a loss;

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.