9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppear before him several times, vide notice, on appointed day, time and place for the purpose mentioned therein and the assessee-appellant replied to him vide following letters in response to his notice: (i) Letter dt 19th October, 1976 in response to notice dt. 10th October 1976. (ii) Letter dt. 3rd Jan., 1977 in response to notice dt. 21st Dec., 1976. (iii) Letter dt. 24th Jan., 1977 in response to notice dt. 12th Jan., 1977. (iv) Letter dt. 12th Feb., 1977 in response to notice dt. 29th Jan., 1977 to appear on 8th Feb., 1977. The sum and substance of the letters (i) to (iii) are: (A) that the return of income for the asst. yr. 1974-75 was filed on 16th May, 1975 and as per return of income the assessee was entitled to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rits of the case; (ii) that without prejudice to the contention on merits, the fine imposed was excessive and the ends of justice could be met if token fine amounting to Rs. 25 was sustained on the facts and in the circumstances of the case; (iii) Shri Parikh, ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the impugned orders of the authorities below were in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee-appellant before imposing the fine under s. 131 of the Act; (iv) he also contended that the assistant of the authorised representative attended the office of the ITO on 3rd Feb., 1977 and he requested the ITO the purpose requiring the personal attendance of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the ITO which is also the consequence of the same default of the assessee-appellant for non-attendance in person on 8th Feb., 1977 because for non-attendance in person on the appointed day 8th Feb., 1977, the ITO had made the assessment under s. 144 of the Act as well as imposed the fine amounting to Rs. 500 under s. 131(2) of the Act simultaneously. Being so, when the ITO, who is the author of both the said orders, for the one and only one default of the assessee appellant, was convinced or satisfied that his one order of the two was unjustified and he himself undid it, then prima facie the order imposing fine is also ends of justice, equity, fair play and good conscience. It is further clear to us that the ITO was asking the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representative, which is allowed under the Act, i.e., to appear on behalf of the assessee-appellant, or assuming for the sake of convenience or at the most he can ask the assessee to do so to produce book of A/c, documents but the ITO cannot do so without these at all. Thus, we hold that the ITO cannot ask the assessee appellant under s. 131(2) to attend his office in person on particular day without assigning a definite purpose referred above in the notice, which prima facie shows that the said requirement is such, which cannot be met out by the appearance on the day of his authorised representative. We will not hesitate to say that the IT Authorities under the Act, even under s. 131(2) of the Act are exercising the quasi-judicial powers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee-appellant was rebutted by Sri Singh, ld. Deptl. Rep. relying on s. 131 of the Act itself and there added that the word "fine" is not synonymous with that of "penalty", the imposition of which require the issue of show cause notice on the assessee under the Act. We do not agree with the contention of Shri Singh, ld. Deptl. Rep that the meaning of the words "fine" and "penalty" occurring in the Act are different. The meaning of the words referred, as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Fifty Edition are reproduced hereinafter: Fine : Sum of money fixed as penalty for offence. Penalty : Punishment, esp. (payment of sum of money, for breach of law, rules of contracts. The dic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued to the assessee-appellant which is required under the principles of nature justice, the cardinal principles of which is that the opportunity of being heard is to be given to the parties before the quasi-judicial authorities and being so, to the defaulter the non-attendance before the ITO on the appointed day. If it is not done, then principles of natural justice are violated and the order is void ab initio. In this case no opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee-appellant before imposing the fine amounting to representative Rs. 500 under s. 131(12) of the Act, and the authorities below are void ab initio. Hence we set aside the order of the authorities below on this score also. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
