INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. H P VISHWESWARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the appellant's learned counsel and learned senior counsel who represents the respondents. The main point raised by the appellant's learned counsel was that admittedly, if one were to look at the sequence of the calendar of events, in other words, the strict dates when the additional or enhanced compensation was admittedly received by the assessee at a point of time when the provisions of Section 54E(3) were no longer on the statute book in so far as the same were omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1988. The appellant's learned counsel submits that irrespective of what may be possible in other situations, there is a clear error in the present instance in affording the benefit to the assessee under the provision that was no longer on the statute book as on the date when the additional compensation was physically received. Prima facie, the submission appeared absolutely invincible because going by first principles, the contention raised by learned counsel would be totally justified and consequently it was his submission that this court would need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

(2.) PAUSING here for a moment, we do need to express more than a level of displeasure with regard to the quality of the order passed by the Tribunal in this case which shows not only total non-application of mind but also total and complete disregard for the elementary principles that govern the manner in which a responsible forum is required to decide a case of some consequence. Mr. Indrakumar would naturally be severely handicapped while presenting an appeal against such an order in so far as the order is virtually silent on every relevant aspect. Short of a bald narration of the sequence of events and the issues involving the order says virtually nothing and the first reaction of this court was to straightaway quash the order and remand the case for a redecision.

(3.) WE need to reiterate here that we have been guided by certain well defined principles relating to the interpretation of statutes and in this context, we need to reiterate what the Supreme Court had laid down in the decision reported in CIT v. J. H. Gotla wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows (headnote) ;