South India Surgical Co. P. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—Mr. T. Ravikumar, learned standing counsel for Income Tax accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

After hearing learned senior counsel, Mr. V. Ramachandran, and learned counsel for the Department in extenso, it is seen that in the impugned

order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ""the Tribunal""), has not considered the first issue, which is reflected in the

following words :

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not totally deleting the addition of Rs. 79,47,330 made to the closing stock accounted for

by the appellant in the return and the accompanying documents, though the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has accepted substantially the

contention of the appellant. He erred in not restricting the allowance and not excluding the total addition.

It is seen that this was a specific ground raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has merely referred to the order passed by the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and has merely paraphrased the findings given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in

paragraph 13 of his order. Seeing the whole order, it is not seen as to in what manner the challenge to the findings of the Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals) in respect of the aforementioned amount has been dealt with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in our opinion, could not merely say that

it agrees with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and more particularly in respect of the aforementioned amount of Rs.

79,47,330. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department also tried to suggest that the whole order as such and the findings therein were

confirmed by the Tribunal in internal page No. 8 of its order, which is to the following effect :

On analysing the discussions made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the consequent findings given by him, we find that the

decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue is very clear and well considered.

We are afraid, we cannot see this as a total confirmation of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), for the simple reason that

the issue that the Appellate Tribunal was speaking of in the aforementioned lines only appears to be issue No. (iv), which appears in internal page

No. 7. Further, the discussion is also in respect of issue No. (iv), which pertains to Hyderabad office stock. In the circumstances, we have no

other go but to remand the matter. A total non-consideration by the appellate court would entail a substantial question of law. In that view, we

would choose to interfere in this order and send back the matter for fresh decision of this issue alone. We do not see any reason to differ with the

Tribunal in so far as the other issues are concerned.