Case Law Details
The Tribunal should pass a fresh order not only in relation to the objection raised by the Assessee to the exercise of powers under section 263 of the IT Act, but on the merits of the claim as well. Merely because such an opportunity is given by us does not mean that the Tribunal is obliged to uphold any of the grounds. It is only the partial revival of the Appeal and in the manner done by the Tribunal which has forced us to take this unusual step. We do not think that interest of justice and equity is served by non consideration of vital materials by the last fact finding authority, namely the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. That the Tribunal was required to recall its earlier orders and for the reasons which have been assigned by it would indicate that it failed to apply its mind at the initial stage to the grounds raised in the Appeal and in their entirety. It omitted from consideration crucial documentary material as well. In such circumstances, such partial revival of the Appeal would not meet the ends of justice.
We modify the order passed on the Miscellaneous Application and direct that the Appeal shall now be heard on its own merits and in accordance with law, permitting the Assessee to raise all grounds that are to be found in the Memo of Appeal. The Tribunal shall apply its mind afresh to the contentions raised by both sides and uninfluenced by its prior observations and conclusions and dispose of the Appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law. This direction issued by us in the exercise of our further appellate and inherent powers should serve as a reminder to the Tribunal that the matters of vital importance affecting the interest of public should not be disposed of in a light hearted or casual manner. The record must be perused in its entirety and properly and minutely. That is the function and which the judicial body is required to perform and oblige to carry out as well. In these circumstances and the unsatisfactory and unhappy manner in which the Miscellaneous Application has been dealt with and decided that we have directed the revival of the Appeal. We express no opinion on the rival contentions and the Appeal shall be decided by the Tribunal on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations. We further clarify that this order passed today does not oblige the Tribunal to either allow the Appeal in entirety or partially. All courses and open in law can be adopted by the Tribunal.
the hon court is right as the tribunals of late behaving so that is why the hon court rightly observed when on tribunals might have as some tribunal decisions one can see when bad in law appeals are suggested by hon tribunals suggest to appellants if they can remand back to that great AO who issued bad in law notices obviously shows some casual approaches of tribunals if one observes hon tribunal judgements!
what is wrong when hon superior court makes such observation on hon tax tribunals, i do not find anything wrong in superior courts observations.. and yea like this way the superior courts need to rectify these hon tribunals when errors occur that is vital.
For example, i quote the view of on SC in Hargovind dayal srivastava v GN Verma AIR 1977 SC held….It is the duty of lawyers to protect the Dignity and Decorum of Judiciary. If lawyers fail in their duty,the faith of the people in the judiciary will be undermined to a large extant . It is said that the Lawyers are the custodians of civilization. Lawyers have to discharge their duty with dignity and decorum and discipline.’
so any lawyer before hon tribunal suggests anything legally untenable he in fact offends the dignity, decorum and discipline as it is said the lawyers only help the benches to improve better and better thanks to the lawyers’ knowledge base.. if he does not he surely fails his obligation under Advocates Act,1961