TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee has fulfilled all the three conditions laid down u/s 220(2A) of the Act - the Settlement Commission has to exercise its discretion judicially and satisfy that the three conditions laid down under Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Sub-section (2A) of Section 220 of the Act have been fulfilled, before passing an order waiving interest - Still further, such an application has to be decided by a speaking order – Relying upon Kishan Lal Versus Union of India And Others (And Other Petitions) [1998 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] –revenue is directed to consider the application filed by the second respondent u/s 220(2A) of the Act, with regard to waiver of interest levied u/s 220(2) of the Act - thus, the order of the settlement commission is set aside – Decided in favour of Revenue. - OP. No. 38775 of 2002 (N) - - - Dated:- 22-5-2014 - Anil K. Narendran,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri. P. K. R. Menon For the Respondent : Sri. C. K. Alavi JUDGMENT This Original Petition is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order of the Settlement Commission (IT WT) Additional Bench, Chennai, first respondent herein, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t.P1 order, to the extent of granting waiver of interest levied on the assessee under Sub- section (2) of Section 220 of the Act, for the period subsequent to 10/02/1997, being the date of filing of the application before the Settlement Commission under Sub-section (1) of Section 245C of the said Act, the Revenue is before this Court in this Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 5. The issue which has to be considered in this Original Petition is whether the Settlement Commission in Ext. P1 was justified in granting waiver of interest levied on the assessee under Sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Act without considering as to whether the assessee fulfilled all the three conditions laid down under Sub-section (2A) of Section 220 of the Act and recording reasons as to how the assessee is entitled for such waiver of interest. 6. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Act, if the amount specified in any notice of demand under Section 156 is not paid within the period limited under Sub-section (1), the assessee shall b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Sub-section (2A) of Section 220 of the Act, then it has power either to reduce or waive the amount of interest. (para. 4) In CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (2002 (1) SCC 633: (2001) 252 ITR 1) the Apex Court held that, wherever the Act contemplated power of waiver or reduction of interest to be entrusted with any particular authority in any particular situation, it has done so like in Section 220(2A) of the Act. (para. 19) The Apex Court further held that, it is the normal rule of construction that when a statue vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself. (para. 27) 8. In CIT v. Damani Brothers (2003 (3) SCC 86 : (2003) 259 ITR 475), arising out of the order of the Special Bench of the Settlement Commission in Damani Brothers case (supra), the Apex Court considered among other questions the powers of the Settlement Commission to waive interest levied under Sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Act. Relying the principle in Anjum's case (supra), the Apex Court reversed in part the order of the Settlement Commission in Damani Brot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat a decision which is taken by the authority under Section 220 (2A) can be subjected to judicial review, as was sought to be done in the present case by filing a petition under Article 226, this being so and where the decision of the application may have repercussion with regard to the amount of interest which an assessee is required to pay it would be imperative that some reasons are given by the authority while disposing of the application. Mr. Salve, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has strongly relied upon the observations of this Court in Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India (1976 (2) SCC 981) where at page 986 it has been stated that where an authority makes an order in exercise of its quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. In other words, every quasi- judicial order must be supported by reasons. In our opinion, the observations in that case would apply in the present case also. 10. In the case on hand, a perusal of Ext. P1 order reveal a total non-application of mind by the Settlement Commission on the crucial issue as to whether the assessee has fulfilled all the three condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
