Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Commissioner Of Income Tax, A.P-I, ... vs M/S. Orient Longman Limited, Hyderabad on 1 July, 2014
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy, Challa Kodanda Ram
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A No.107 OF 2001 01-07-2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P-I, Hyderabad. ..... Appellant M/s. Orient Longman Limited, Hyderabad......Respondent Counsel for the Appellant:Sri S.R. Ashok Counsel for respondent : Sri C.V. Narasimham <Gist: >Head Note: ?Cases referred: Nil HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A No.107 OF 2001 JUDGMENT:
- (per Honble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The revenue filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2001 of Hyderabad Bench B of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2) The assessee filed the income tax returns for the assessment year 1993-94. He claimed the benefits under Section 80HHC and 80 Q of the Income Tax Act (for short, the Act). The Income Tax Officer disallowed as many as 12 such claims, aggregating to Rs.26,61,320/-. The respondent filed appeal before the Income Tax Commissioner. The appeal was partly allowed through order dated 27.06.1996. While the respondent filed I.T.A.No.1614/Hyd/1996 feeling aggrieved by the denial of part of the relief by the Commissioner, the Department filed I.T.A.No.1626/Hyd/1996 challenging the correctness of the relief granted by the Tribunal. Through the order under appeal, Tribunal allowed I.T.A.No.1614/Hyd/1996 and dismissed the I.T.A.No.1626/Hyd/1996.
3) Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the department submits that the Tribunal has undertaken a semblance of discussion in support of its conclusion and allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent, whereas it did not choose to discuss any of the points urged by the department, while dismissing I.T.A.No.1626/Hyd/1996. He submits that the Tribunal was under obligation to identify the points that arise for consideration in the appeal preferred by the department and to deal with them in detail. He further submits that neither any of the points raised by the department were considered nor any discussion was undertaken and just with one sentence, the departments appeal was dismissed.
4) Sri C.V. Narasimham, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submits that extensive discussion on each and every item was undertaken not only by the Income Tax Commissioner but also appellate authority and the Tribunal did not feel it necessary to repeat the same. He submits that for all practical purposes, the Tribunal has agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the appellate Commissioner and though it would have been better to mention some more reasons, the failure to deal with the points in detail, cannot be said to be fatal.
5) On the return submitted by the assessee, an order of the assessment was passed disallowing several claims. In the appeal preferred before the appellate Commissioner, substantial number of claims referable under Section 80 HHC and 80Q of the Act were allowed, and some of them were disallowed. That naturally resulted in filing of two appeals, one by the respondent, and other by the department.
6) The necessity to file appeals by both the parties to the proceedings may arise in variety of situations. One such occasion is, where, out of several points that arise for consideration, some are answered in favour of one party and others in favour of the other. The aggrieved parties may file appeal not only for seeking the relief in their favour on the aspect, held against by the lower forum but also challenging the relief granted in favour of the other party. If the points on which the reliefs are granted on the one hand those on which the relief is denied on the other; are independent of each other, the appellate forum is required to deal with them separately, though both the appeals are heard together.
7) Whatever be the occasion for filing both the appeals, if a common area of controversy is addressed while undertaking discussion in one appeal, the necessity to repeat the same in other appeal may not arise. Where, however, the points urged by the parties in their respective appeals are different, independent discussion is required to be undertaken. The discussion undertaken in one appeal may not cover the subject matter of the other.
8) In the instant case, the appeals before the Tribunal, no doubt arose out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. However, the grievance of the parties in the respective appeals were totally independent. For instance, the appellate Commissioner allowed as many as 12 claims under Section 80Q of the Act. The order of the Commissioner, to the extent, it has allowed the claims, is assailed by the department before the Tribunal. In such an event, the contentions advanced by the appellant vis-a-vis by the respondent were required to be dealt with, to test the correctness of the relief granted by the appellate Commissioner. Similarly when the respondent prayed for relief as regards left over items, the Tribunal was under
obligation to discuss them separately with reference to the relevant provisions of law and the factual foundation, laid by the respondent.
9) The Tribunal heard both the appeals together but has undertaken separate discussion with reference to each of the appeals. In relation to the appeal preferred by the respondent, the Tribunal made semblance of discussion and expressed the view that the action of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner in treating the entire amount of the commission as excludable for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC and 80Q of the Act is not justified. The Assessing Officer was directed to undertake fresh exercise for working out the details duly giving opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was allowed to that extent.
10) When it came to the question of disposing the appeal preferred by the appellant, the only discussion is contained in the following sentence:
5. As regards the issue involved in the appeal by the Revenue, we agree with the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). We accordingly uphold his order on the issue.
11) It is quite possible that the Tribunal might have felt that the discussion undertaken by it, with reference to the appeal preferred by the assessee would hold good for the appeal preferred by the department. When an independent appeal is preferred with reference to various claims, the Tribunal was under obligation to deal with them independently. If any of the claims are covered by the discussion undertaken or findings recorded in the connected appeal, an indication to that effect ought to have been given. Being the last forum of facts, the Tribunal is supposed to deal with the relevant facts. Howsoever correct, the conclusions arrived at by a judicial forum, may be, the furnishing of reasons in support of its conclusions would make them respectable. Finally, the parties to the proceedings would know as to what weighed with that the forum and secondly the appellate forum would be in a position to read the mind of the adjudicating agency. It hardly needs any mention, failure to furnish reasons would render the proceedings defective or deficient, to that extent.
12) We are in agreement with the contentions of the learned senior counsel that the nature of disposal given by the Tribunal to the appeal preferred by the department was totally unsatisfactory. However, we do not intend to pave the way to remand the matter to the Tribunal since the impact of tax said to be minimal. Further, on merits also, we are satisfied with the reasons furnished by the Commissioner (Appeals) with reference each and every item, in detail. In a way, these very reasons were reiterated by the Tribunal while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent.
13) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
14) Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ appeal shall stand disposed of.
___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Date:01.07.2014.