9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actors. Since a common question arises in all these appeals, they were heard together and common arguments were urged by both the parties. Although separate orders will be passed in all these appeals, the speaking order will be written in this case and this order shall govern the disposal of all other cases. 2. In this case, the assessee was required to pay a sum of Rs. 8,145 under s. 156 of the IT Act, 1961 and a notice was duly served on 19th April, 1976. The demand was payable under s. 220 on before 23rd May, 1976 and, admittedly, it was not so paid. The ITO served on the assessee a notice to show cause why penalty under s. 221(1) should not be levied. There was no response by the assessee. The ITO, therefore, passed the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the in applicable parts have not been scored out so that it cannot be said whether or not there was an explanation submitted by the assessee and if it was submitted, whether or not it was found to be satisfactory, can be said to be a valid order? The Madras High Court has held in the case of Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. IAC (1), that the statutory functionaries, while dealing with an assessee's liability or exigibility to income-tax function more as administrative Tribunals though they exercise quasi-judicial functions; but the nature of such proceedings are administrative in character in so far as their right to levy penalty for any violation of the statutory provisions under the IT Act is concerned. The Supreme Court has held in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... un-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 partly aggrieved, in a proceeding before the High Court or this Court, has the opportunity to demonstrate that 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 authority invested with judicial power". 5. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (5) the Supreme Court held that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
