TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner had given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, all the relevant facts could have been brought to his notice and the decision could have been taken in accordance with law. For the reasons aforesaid, we quash and set aside the decision of the Commissioner of Income-taxas illegal and direct the said authority to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving the petitioner's representative an opportunity of personal hearing. - - - - - Dated:- 24-7-2002 - Judge(s) : M. S. SHAH., K. A. PUJ. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by M.S. SHAH J.-Rule. Mr. B.B. Naik, learned counsel for the respondents, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request of learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee's claim under section 11(1) for the aforesaid amount was to be disallowed and was accordingly disallowed. For the assessment year 1997-98, the same reasoning was adopted and the income was assessed at Rs. 1,43,523. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid communication dated March 21, 2002, as well as the subsequent assessment orders dated March 27, 2002, for the aforesaid years. At the hearing of this petition, Mr. Akil Kureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order is illegal and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner-Institute was not given any opportunity of personal hearing. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Kar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls drastic civil consequences on assessment of the petitioner-trust, the principles of natural justice are required to be read into in the provisions of section 119(2)(b). As per the settled legal position, whenever a quasi-judicial or even an administrative authority decides the matter which entails civil consequences to a party, the party is required to be given an opportunity of hearing. Even Circular No. 273, dated June 3, 1980, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes provides that very often trusts are not able to file the application under section 11(1)(2) of the Act within the time limit allowed by the provisions and thereafter the trusts are required to approach the Board for condoning the delay in filing applications. With a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax, Jamnagar, had considered the aforesaid relevant criteria laid down by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for deciding applications for condoning delay under section 11(2) of the Act. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the impugned decision as communicated by the letter dated March 21, 2002, is vitiated for non-consideration of the relevant criteria for deciding an application for condoning delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. In fact, if the Commissioner had given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, all the relevant facts could have been brought to his notice and the decision could have been taken in accordance with law. For the reasons aforesaid, we quash and set aside the decision of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
