M/S. MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 882 · Decided: 28-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

.._ 
A 
MIS. MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS 
v. 
.. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE AND ANR. 
JANUARY 28, 2005 
B 
[RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASA VAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Judgment-High Court affirming Tribunal's order-Without any 
discussion on the issues involved-Reasons for the judgment not recorded-
c 
Held, recording of reasons is a part affair procedure-Reasons/or affirmation 
have to be recorded-Matter remitted to High Court-Practice and Procedure. 
The present appeals by assessee and CA No. 4232 of 2003 were filed 
challenging the order of the High Court in the appeals under s.260-A of 
the Income Tax Act, 1961. 
D 
Besides the issues raised in CA No. 4232 of 2003, it was contended 
~ 
for the appellant that conclusions arrived at by the High Court were 
without any discussion and reasons. 
.. 
Disposing of the appeals and remitting the matter to the High Court, 
E the Court. 
HELD : t. So far as the issues covered by judgment in CA No. 4232 
of 2003 etc. etc. are concerned, the order shall cover these appeals also. 
[884-A) 
2. In addition, question Nos. (iii), (v) and (vii) as noted in High 
Court's judgment are concerned, need to be adjudicated afresh. It is true, 
-;. . 
in an order of affirmation repetition of reasons elaborately may not be 
-~ 
necessary. But even then the argument advanced and the points urged have 
to be dealt with. Reasons for affirmation have to be indicated, though in 
appropriate cases they may be briefly stated. Recording of reasons is a 
part of fair procedure. [884-A-BJ 
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crab/res, (1974) LCR 120, relied 
i" 
on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 767-768 of 
2005. 
882 
_,. 
_, 
+ 
J 
MANGALOREGANESH BEED! WORKS v. C.l.T. (PASA YAT . .I.] 
883 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2002 of the Karnataka High A 
Court in LT.A. Nos. 69 and 70 of 200 I. 
Harish N. Salve, Joseph Vellapally, Manu Nair and Dhruv Dewan for 
Mis, Suresh A. Shroff & Co., for the Appellant. 
M.L.Venna, Pritesh Kapur, Satya Mitra and B.V. Bairam Das for the B 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
c 
These appeals by the· assessee are directed against the judgment rendered 
by a Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court in appeals purported to be 
under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). The 
appeals were filed by the revenue questioning correctness of certain 
conclusions arrived at by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench D 
(in short the 'Tribunal') in appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue. 
The dispute relates to the assessment year 1995-96. The relevant factual 
details have been noted in Civil Appeal No. 4232 of 2003 and other cases. 
(M Janardhan Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax etc. etc.) disposed 
of today, and are not repeated here. The assessee was described as A.0.P.- E 
3 by the revenue authorities in the concerned assessment proceedings. 
Questioning correctness of certain conclusion by the Tribunal, revenue 
had preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court has held that 
the Tribunal's views in respect of Question Nos. (iii), (v) and (vii) as 
formulated were not in order, and accordingly allowed the appeals filed by F 
the revenue in part. The basic issues which form the core dispute have been 
dealt with in the appeals filed by the assessees and disposed of, as noted 
supra, today. 
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conclusions of the 
High Court have been arrived at without any discussion and reasons have not G 
been indicated as to why seal of approval was being put on the findings 
recorded by the Tribunal. 
Per contra, learned counsel for the revenue supported judgment of the 
High Court. According to him, when views of Tribunal and first appellate 
authority were being affinned, there was no need to record reasons separately. H 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A 
So far as the issues covered by judgment in C.A. No. 4232 of 2003 etc. 
..... 
etc. as noted above, are concerned, the order shall cover these appeals also. 
..... 
In addition, question Nos. (iii), (v) and (vii) as noted in High Court's 
judgment are concerned, need to be adjudicated afresh. It is true in an order 
B 
of affirmation, repetition of reasons elaborately may not be necessary. But 
even then the arguments advanced, points urged have to be dealt with. Reasons 
for affirmation have to be indicated, thoug

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.