I TAS. NOS. 161(IB) AND 162(IB) OF 1992-93, DECIDED ON 23RD FEBRUARY, 1993, VS I TAS. NOS. 161(IB) AND 162(IB) OF 1992-93, DECIDED ON 23RD FEBRUARY, 1993,
1993 P T D 731
[Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Ch. Irshad Ahmed, Judicial Member
I TAs. Nos. 161(IB) and 162(IB) of 1992-93, decided on 23/02/1993.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S.132---Decision in appeal---Reasons have to be given by the Appellate Authority while disposing of the appeal---Where the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) had disposed of the appeal by handing down printed order by filling the blanks left therein, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside such order of Income Tax Commissioner by holding same to be indicating arbitrariness of thought and action and the feeling that justice had neither been done nor seemed to have been done.
In the present case Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had filled the blanks in a printed order by appropriate amount which was declared by the assessee in the return of his income and that which was assessed by the assessing officer. The format of the order handed down by the Commissioner showed that he had got available printed orders with blanks to be filled in showing the income declared by the assessee, the income computed by the assessing officer, the name of the person who represented the assessee before him and the name of the business. The findings had already been recorded and printed. Under the circumstances, one had no difficulty to conclude that the CIT (Appeals) had prejudged the cases of all the assessees who would appeal before him. This amounted to refusing to give reasons for the decision and the grounds for the decision. There is no doubt that the CIT (Appeals)'s order which was perfunctory gave an impression of a hasty off hand decision, which although might have been correct in its result, was most deficient in its content. Reasons have to be given by the Commissioner in disposing of the appeal.
Under the circumstances, the decisions handed down by the Commissioner disclosed arbitrariness of thought and action and the feeling that justice had neither been done nor seemed to have been done.
Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 173 ref:
Nemo for Appellant
Mrs. Zarreen Saleem Ansari, D.R. for Respondent
Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1993.
ORDER
This order disposes of two appeals noted title in which a common question of law is involved. The common question of law is whether the disposal of appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gujranwala, by a printed order which the Commissioner had got available before hearing of appeals was a lawful disposal.
The CIT (Appeals) had disposed of the both appeals by handing down identical printed orders. The assessees have objected to the orders on the ground that printed orders were not orders which the CIT was required to pass under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
None has appeared on behalf of the assessees in spite of the fact that notices regarding hearing of the appeals were sent to them through registered post. Mrs. Zarreen Saleem Ansari, DR is present on behalf of the Department and has been heard.
The CIT (Appeals) has disposed of each of the above appeals by following order:---
"Return of income has been filed at Rs.-------------------. It has been processed at Rs.:---------------------. Mr.--------------------represented this case before me. He has been heard and the facts of the case are considered. The applicant is deriving income from----------------------- Full facts of the case are described in the body of order. Accounts as such have not been maintained by the appellant. 1t is very difficult in such circumstances on my part to make any interference. No case is also made out by the learned representative in favour of the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed accordingly."
The only difference between the two orders is that the blanks have been filled in by appropriate amount which was declared by the each assessee in the return of his income and that which was assessed by the assessing officer. The format of the order handed down by the Commissioner shows that he has got available printed orders with blanks to be filled in showing the income declared by the assessee, the income computed by the assessing officer, the name of the person who represented the assessee before him and the name of the business. The findings have already been recorded and printed. Under the circumstances, one has no difficulty to conclude that the CIT (Appeals) has prejudged the cases of all the assessees who would appeal before him. This amounts to refusing to give reasons for the decision and the grounds for the decision. There is no doubt that the CIT (Appeals)'s- order which is unfortunately perfunctory gives an impression of a hasty off hand decision which, although may have been correct in its result, is most deficient in its content. The need to give reasons has been compendiously given by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan PLD 1970 Supreme Court 173. Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan said:---
"If a summary order of rejection can be made in such terms, there is no reason why a similar order of acceptance saying `there is considerable substance in the petition which is accepted', should not be equally blessed. This will reduce the whole judicial process to authoritarian decrees without the need for logic and reasoning which have always been the traditional pillars of judicial pronouncements investing them with their primary excellence of propriety and judicial balance. Litigants who bring their disputes to the Law Courts with the incidental hardships and expenses involved do expect a patient and a judicious treatment of their cases and their determination by proper orders. A judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its mind to the resolution of the issues involved for their proper adjudication. The ultimate result may be reached by a laborious effort, but if the final order does not bear an imprint of that effort and on the contrary discloses arbitrariness of thought and action, the feeling with the painful results, that justice has neither been done nor seemed to have been done is inescapable. When the order of a lower Court contains no reasons, the appellate Court is deprived of the benefit of the views of the lower Court and is unable to appreciate the processes by which the decision has been reached."
Under the circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the decisions handed down by the Commissioner disclose arbitrariness of thought and action and the feeling that justice has neither been done nor seemed to have been 8 done. Accordingly the orders of the CIT(A) are set aside and he is directed to dispose of the appeals afresh in accordance with law.
M.B.A./2251 /T Orders set-aside.