REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 2362 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.20075 of 2017) Commissioner of Income Tax I .Appellant(s) VERSUS M/s Rashtradoot (HUF) .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed against final judgment and order dated 25.10.2016 passed by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.02.27 17:28:21 IST in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 43 of 2002 whereby Reason: Division Bench of High Court dismissed 1 1 appeal filed by appellant herein and affirmed order dated 24.05.2001 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in I.T.S.S.A. No.29/JP/2000. 3. few facts need mention infra for disposal of appeal. 4. This appeal filed by Revenue arises out of income tax proceedings initiated against respondent(assessee) on basis of search operation which was carried out by Income Tax Department in assessee s premises on 04.09.1997. This gave rise to initiation of assessment proceedings for block period from 01.04.1987 to 04.09.1997 (Assessment Years 1987 88 to 1996 97 and 1997 98 up to 04.09.1997) against assessee to determine their tax liability as result of search operations carried in their premises. matter, out of block assessment proceedings, reached to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at instance of 2 2 respondent against order of assessing authorities. 5. Tribunal (ITAT), however, decided various issues arising in case in favour of respondent(assessee) by allowing respondent's appeal, which gave rise to filing of appeal by Revenue before High Court under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). 6. High Court by impugned judgment dismissed Revenue's appeal, which gave rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by Revenue in this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of record of case, we are constrained to allow appeal and remand case to High Court for deciding appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. 3 3 8. need to remand case to High Court has arisen for reason that on perusal of impugned order, we find that High Court has set out facts in paragraph 2 and submissions of counsel for parties in paragraphs 3 to 9. In paragraph 10, High Court mentioned names of counsel who argued case and then in paragraphs 12 and 13, High Court states as under : 12. Tribunal while considering judgment on 24.05.2001 did not consider amendments envisaged by legislature, therefore, under Section 260 when we are considering substantial law, we have to consider whether Tribunal has committed error. 13. In view of above, issue is answered in favour of assessee and against department. view taken by this Court in case of Relaxo Foorwear(supra) will apply in present case and view taken by Tribunal is liable to be confirmed and same is confirmed. 9. perusal of aforementioned two concluding paragraphs would go to show that 4 4 High Court has neither discussed and nor assigned any reason in support of its conclusion for dismissal of appeal. 10. Indeed, observation made in paragraph 13 that "In view of above" does not lead us anywhere because, as mentioned above, in paragraphs 1 to 12 no reasons are mentioned except facts and submissions. 11. That apart, we find that High Court committed another error. High Court while deciding appeal heard learned counsel for parties, yet did not frame any substantial question of law arising in case. 12. Section 260A of Act is akin to Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as Code ) with addition of sub sections (6)(a),6(b) and (7) of Section 260A of Act. 5 5 13. High Court has jurisdiction to dismiss appeal filed under Section 260A of Act on ground that it does not involve any substantial question of law. Such dismissal is considered as dismissal of appeal in limine, i.e., dismissal without issuing any notice of appeal to respondent and without hearing respondent. 14. High Court has also jurisdiction to dismiss appeal by answering question(s) framed on merits or by dismissing appeal on ground that question(s) though framed but such question(s) does/do not arise in appeal. High Court, though may not have framed any particular question at time of admitting appeal along with other question, yet it has jurisdiction to frame additional question at later stage before final hearing of appeal by assigning reasons as provided in proviso to Section 260A(4) and Section 260A(5) of Act and lastly, High 6 6 Court has jurisdiction to allow appeal but this High Court can do only after framing substantial question(s) of law and hearing respondent by answering question(s) framed in appellant s favour. 15. However, in this case, we find that High Court did not dismiss appeal in limine but dismissed it after hearing both parties. In such situation, High Court should have framed question(s) and answered them by assigning reasons accordingly one way or other by exercising powers under sub sections (4) and (5) of Section 260A of Act. 16. As mentioned above, in absence of any discussion or/and reasoning/ground as to why order of ITAT does not suffer from any illegality and why grounds of Revenue are not acceptable and why appeal does not involve any substantial question(s) of law or though framed cannot be 7 7 answered in Revenue s favour, impugned order suffers from jurisdictional errors and, therefore, legally unsustainable for want of compliance of requirements of sub sections (4) and (5) of Section 260A of Act. 17. This Court has consistently laid emphasis that every order/judgment, which decides lis between parties, must contain reason(s)/ground(s) for arriving at particular conclusion. 18. Indeed, what is decisive for deciding case is not conclusion alone but reason(s)/ground(s) assigned in support of such conclusion, which results in reaching to such conclusion. 19. In order to decide as to whether impugned order is legally sustainable or not, Appellate Court is entitled to know as to what impelled Court below to pass such order in favour of one 8 8 party and against aggrieved party. We find that this requirement is missing in impugned order of this case and hence interference is called for. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129, Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 222, State of U.P. vs. Battan & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 607, Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 519 and State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568). 20. In view of foregoing discussion, we allow appeal, set aside impugned order and remand case to High Court with request to decide appeal filed by Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) afresh on merits in accordance with law. 21. Before parting, we may observe that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of case 9 9 having formed opinion to remand case to High Court in light of our foregoing discussion. High Court will, therefore, decide appeal in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court. . ...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] ... ..................................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; February 27, 2019 10 10 Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Rashtradoot (HUF)