CIT vs Bajaj Herbals (P) Ltd., (2022) 443 ITR 230

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax­1 ..Appellant (S)

Versus

M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent (S)

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned order

dated 01.10.2020/02.12.2020 (modification order) passed

by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at

Ahmedabad in R/Tax Appeal No. 278 of 2020, by which

the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by

the appellant herein – Revenue, the present appeal has

been preferred by the Revenue.

2. As per the office report the respondent is served. From the

office report, it appears that the respondent – assessee

sent a letter to the Registry of this Court on 22.10.2021 to Signature Not Verified

grant an adjournment of three months. The time was Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2022.04.07 16:17:59 IST Reason:

accordingly granted. Despite the same no one has filed

1 vakalatnama and none has appeared on behalf of the

respondent. Hence, service of notice on the respondent is

complete.

3. By the impugned order the High Court has dismissed the

said appeal simply by observing that none of the questions

as proposed by the revenue could be termed as the

substantial questions of law and all the questions

proposed are on factual aspects of the matter. However, it

is required to be noted that except re­producing the

proposed questions of law, there is no further discussion

on the factual matrix of the case. While issuing the notice,

this Court passed the following order: ­

“Mr. Balbir Singh, learned ASG, has vehemently submitted that in the impugned order except narrating the proposed questions of law, there is no independent reasoning given by the High Court while dismissing the appeal except recording that “having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that none of the questions as proposed by the revenue could be termed as the substantial questions of law. All the questions proposed are on factual aspects of the matter”.

Hence, issue notice for final disposal returnable within six weeks.

Counter be filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the notice.

Dasti, in addition, is permitted.”

3.1 As the impugned order passed by the High Court is a non­

speaking and non­reasoned order and even the submissions

2 on behalf of the revenue are not recorded, the impugned

order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal is

unsustainable.

3.2 Under the circumstances, the impugned order is hereby

quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the High

Court to decide and dispose of the appeal afresh in

accordance with law and on its own merits. If the High

Court is of the opinion that the proposed questions of law

are not substantial questions of law and they are on factual

aspects, it will be open for the High Court to consider the

same in accordance with law, however, the High Court to

pass a speaking and reasoned order after recording the

submissions made on behalf of the respective parties.

4. The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No

costs.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi, April 07, 2022.

3