9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts return of income for this year the ITO initiated pearly proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 and called upon the assessee to show cause against levy of penalty. 3. For the asst. yr. 1971-72, the assessee filed its return of income on 12th Nov., 1972 declaring a total income of Rs. 42,000 as against the due date of 30th Sept., 1971. It was assessed on a total income of Rs. 63,410. For this year also, there was a delay of 13 months in filing the return by the appellant. He, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) and called upon the appellant to show cause against levy of penalty. 4. In reply to the penalty notices, the appellant s counsel Shri Govind Mishra appeared and stated that as the partner was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years. He further submitted that there was no finding that the explanation offered by the appellant was false or as to why it was no satisfactory or as to why it was rejected by the ITO. He, therefore, submitted that the orders of the ITO levying penalties were not speaking orders and that therefore, the penalties levied were unsustainable. In support of his contention he relied on (AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1606) Bhagat Raja vs. Union of India Ors. (1972) 83 ITR 26 Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa and (1974 96 ITR 206 All) India Sewing Machine Co. vs. CIT, Mysore. 8. Shri J.B. Badve, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the reasonable cause pleaded by the appellant could not constitute reasonable cause for the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year : 1970-71 Shri G. Mishra counsel attended in connection with penal proceedings and has been heard. He argued that the partner was away from station and he was away in the lease of forest. This argument is far from satisfactory and hence rejected. I impose penalty of Rs. 3,630 under s. 271(1)(a). Issued D.N. and Challan" "Assessment year : 1971-72 Shri G. Mishra counsel attended in connection with penalty proceedings, It is argued that partner was away from station and the assessee was busy in the lease of forest. This explanation is rejected and I impose penalty of Rs. 370 under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. 10. We also set out the order-sheet entry in the file of the ITO on 24th Jan., 1974: "24th Jan., 1974 Shri G. Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have been levied more or less in a mechanical manner by the ITO without applying his mind to the various aspects of the case. 11. In (AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1606) Bhagat Raja vs. Union of India Ors. at page 1610 Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows in a paragraph of their Judgment. "(9) Let us now examine the question as to whether it was incumbent on the Central Government to give any reasons for its decision on review. It was argued that the very exercise of judicial or quasi judicial powers in the case of a Tribunal entailed upon it an obligation to give reasons for arriving at a decision for or against a party. The decisions of Tribunals in India are subject to the supervisory powers of the High Courts under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the State Government, this Court in appeal, may find it difficult to ascertain which are the grounds which weighted with the Central Government in upholding the order of the State Government, this Court in appeal, may find it difficult to ascertain which are the grounds which weighted with the Central Government in upholding the order of the State Government. In such circumstances, what is known as a "speaking order" is called for." 12. In (1973 92 ITR 1) Bharat Nidhi Ltd. vs. Union of India Anr. the Delhi High Court held that the Central Board in dealing with the statutory right of the petitioner company to claim exemption on the grounds specified in the notification No. 47 dt. 9th Dec., 1933 was bound to pass a speaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es judicial function, is obvious; when judicial power is exercised by an authority normally performing executive or administrative functions, this Court would require to be satisfied that the decision has been reached after due consideration of the merits of the dispute, influenced by extraneous considerations of policy or expediency, the Court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds, one, that the party arrgieved, in a proceeding before the High Court or this Court, has the opportunity to demonstrate the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous, the other, that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
