Case: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd

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 grant an adjournment of three months. The time was accordingly granted. Despite the same no one has filed 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 re--producing 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.

Reasoning:
3.1 As the impugned order passed by the High Court is a nonspeaking and non--reasoned order and even the submissions on behalf of the revenue are not recorded, the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal is unsustainable.