2011 (3) TMI 643 - HC - Income Tax

Waiver of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Perusal of section 273A(2)(b) of the Act shows that the grant of waiver is subject to the approval of the Chief CIT, in case where the amount exceeds rupees five lakhs - where the Chief CIT proposes to grant approval for waiver, no opportunity is required to be given to the assessee but in case he proposes to refuse the approval, the principle of natural justice is to be observed and the opportunity to the assessee should be given as it adversely affects the right of the assessee and assessee suffers from civil consequences - Only because certain consequences would ensure if the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, the same by itself would not mean that the Court would not insist on complying with the fundamental principles of law - Decided in favour of the assessee by way of remand to AO

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order of CIT under section 273A of the IT Act for penalty waiver and refusal of approval by Chief CIT under section 273A(2)(b) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested the rejection of the waiver application by CIT Moradabad based on Chief CIT Bareilly's refusal to grant approval. The petitioner argued that the Chief CIT's decision lacked proper consideration of the voluntary disclosure made by the assessee and cooperation during assessment. The petitioner cited legal precedents emphasizing the need for a fair hearing before refusal of approval.

2. The respondent, represented by the standing counsel, supported the decisions of both CIT Moradabad and Chief CIT Bareilly, leading to a legal dispute over the application of penalty waiver under section 273A of the IT Act.

3. The court examined the provisions of section 273A(1) and (2) of the Act, which empower the CIT to reduce or waive penalties under certain conditions, subject to approval by the Chief CIT if the amount exceeds a specified limit. The court scrutinized the orders of CIT Moradabad and Chief CIT Bareilly, noting discrepancies in the Chief CIT's decision-making process.

4. The court highlighted that the Chief CIT's refusal to grant approval was based on the assertion that the revised return was not voluntary, despite the assessing authority's report stating otherwise. The court ruled that the Chief CIT's decision lacked proper reasoning and overlooked crucial evidence, leading to the set-aside of both orders.

5. Emphasizing the importance of natural justice, the court held that the refusal of approval by Chief CIT should involve a fair hearing for the assessee, as it significantly impacts their rights. The court stressed that the power under section 273A(2)(b) should not be exercised mechanically and requires reasoned decision-making to safeguard the assessee's interests.

6. Drawing parallels with similar provisions in the U.P. Trade-tax Act, the court referenced previous cases where the principle of natural justice was deemed essential even in the absence of explicit statutory requirements. The court cited Supreme Court judgments underscoring the need for fair hearings and reasoned decisions in matters affecting the rights of individuals.

7. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders of CIT Moradabad and Chief CIT Bareilly. The matter was remanded to CIT Moradabad for a fresh decision in compliance with the law and principles of natural justice.