9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner filed his return of income on or about the 19th September, 1969, and the assessment was completed on the 29th March, 1972, on a total income determined at Rs. 3,37,770 in which Rs. 2,46,148 was added as deemed income under s. 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. On successive appeals preferred before the AAC and the Tribunal, the petitioner obtained relief and his total income for the said assessment year was finally determined at Rs. 1,56,170. As the advance tax paid by the petitioner fell short of the actual tax payable by the prescribed percentage, the ITO levied interest on unpaid tax under s. 215 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner made an application before the ITO on the 28th April, 1975, under s. 215( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emanded. As the assessee had failed to do either and as the ITO had to investigate the matter before making additions to the assessee's income under s. 69A of the Act it could not be said that the delay in completion of the assessment for the said year was not attributable to the assessee. He dismissed the petitioner's application for revision in respect of the said assessment year. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said orders of the ITO and the CIT in rejecting the petitioner's claim for waiver or reduction of interest and contends that the said decisions are illegal and invalid on, inter alia, the following grounds : (a) The ITO was not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for waiver or reduction of the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereof till the disposal of the rule. This application is opposed and an affidavit of the CIT, West Bengal XIII, affirmed on the 9th February, 1977, has been filed in opposition to the petition. The petitioner has affirmed a further affidavit on the 19th of September, 1977, in reply thereto. The learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner, reiterated at the hearing that the ITO would be deemed to be a quasi-judicial authority dealing with the petitioner's application under r. 40 of the I.T. Rules, 1962, and was bound to give due consideration to all facts and circumstances and make a speaking order disclosing reasons in support thereof. He also submitted that the Commissioner failed to take into consideration the scope and effect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Collector of Customs in respect of levy of import duty on certain imported items was taken up to the Collector of Customs and finally to the Government of India for revision. The authorities refused to interfere with the impugned order. The Supreme Court discussed the nature and contents of orders to be passed by quasi-judicial authorities and observed as follows : " It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons ...... it is essential that administrative authorities and Tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he records. It could even be established that from the facts on record the inevitable conclusion was that the Income-tax Officer must have considered the matter. The learned advocate for the respondents has relied on the affidavit of the CIT and in particular to the statements therein that the ITO rejected the application of the petitioner under r. 40 of the I.T. Rules, 1962, after having considered the facts and circumstances and the materials on record and after applying his mind to the same. He contended that once the ITO has exercised his discretion the same would be conclusive and there should not be any urther interference with his order under art. 226 of the Constitution. In support of his contentions, the learned advocate cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been controverted by the ITO and not by the CIT who has affirmed the relevant paragraphs in the said affidavit as true to his knowledge. It is unlikely the Commissioner would have personal knowledge of the proceeding before the ITO. Apart from that, the learned advocate for the respondents could not distinguish the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner. Law appears to be well settled that in passing a quasi-judicial order the reasons therefor must be stated so that the person who is aggrieved thereby can make effective representation against the same, so that the matter can be properly adjudicated by the appellate and revisional authorities if the matter is pursued. In the instant case, it cannot be disputed that the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
