OM PRAKASH, C. J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Though the Tribunal has referred as many as four questions under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act') for the opinion of this Court, all the questions revolve around the controversy whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the ITO was right in law in charging interest under s. 216 of the Act.
3.The short submission of learned counsel for the assessee is that an adverse finding was recorded by the Tribunal without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without considering materials available on record.
4. This reference has been made on a second round. When the reference was made earlier, the Court remitted the case to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The finding of the Tribunal in para. 3 of its order dt. 1st Dec., 1993, is as follows:
"3. After restoration of the appeal, the case was first posted on 17th Feb., 1993, and at the request of the assessee it was adjourned. On 23rd March, 1993, it was adjourned at the request of the Departmental Representative, as records were not available with him. On 7th Feb., 1993, the hearing was adjourned with a direction to both parties to file paper-books inclusive of relevant materials referred to by the High Court and the case came up before us for final hearing on 30th Nov., 1993. The learned chartered accountant had submitted a paper-book but then would plead for further time to place additional materials in support of the estimates. We are not inclined to grant adjournment. More so when sufficient time has been given to the assessee to place all materials before us. In the circumstances, we hold that on the basis of the materials that have been furnished before us, we are not satisfied with the basis on which the advance tax was either estimated or paid off in instalments. Therefore, we justify the levy of interest under s. 216 r/w s. 212 of the IT Act, 196l."
5. From the above reproduced finding, it is amply clear that the Tribunal passed a non-speaking order simply stating that, "on the basis of the materials that have been furnished before us, we are not satisfied with the basis on which the advance tax was either estimated or paid off in instalments".
5. What led to the Tribunal to come to this conclusion that has not been stated in its order. No reasoning, much less elaborate reasoning, has been given in its order by the Tribunal. Such a bald and non-speaking order from the Tribunal cannot be countenanced. We have, therefore, no option but to remit the case once again to the Tribunal for giving a detailed reasoning as to the question whether interest under s. 216, r/w s. 212 of the Act was rightly levied by the assessing authority.
7. The case is, therefore, remitted to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order on the question of levy of interest under s. 216 of the Act fully supported by reasons.
For the above reasons, we are returning the questions unanswered.
OPEN