9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to order rejecting application under section 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and complaint filed under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order rejecting his application under section 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the complaint filed against him under sections 276C and 277 of the same Act. The petitioner contended that the order dated May 6, 1983, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was illegal and against the principles of natural justice as no reasons were provided for rejecting the application. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner acted as a quasi-judicial Tribunal while deciding the application, and the impugned order should be set aside. The petitioner also invoked section 279(1A) of the Act to request a stay on further proceedings until a decision is made on the application for penalty waiver. The relevant part of section 273A(4) was examined to determine the authority's power to reduce or waive penalties if certain conditions are met. The section mandates that the authority must consider the facts of the case, whether not granting relief would cause genuine hardship to the assessee, and whether the assessee has cooperated in the inquiry. It further requires the authority to record reasons for the decision, making it a quasi-judicial order. The court emphasized the necessity of a reasoned order based on objective criteria to ensure decisions are lawful and not arbitrary. Citing a precedent related to a similar provision under the Wealth-tax Act, the court highlighted the requirement for authorities to provide reasons for quasi-judicial orders. The court emphasized that the rule mandating reasons is a fundamental principle of natural justice and must be observed in its true spirit. Mere pretense of compliance is deemed insufficient. Consequently, the court ruled that the Commissioner's order rejecting the application without reasons must be quashed, directing a fresh decision in line with the law. The court allowed the special civil application, quashing the Commissioner's order and instructing a fresh decision on the petitioner's application under section 273A(4). Until the application is decided, the respondents were directed not to proceed with the criminal complaint against the petitioner. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs, ensuring compliance with legal principles and procedural fairness.
|
