2002 (7) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Condoning delay under section 119(2)(b) - Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs. 11, 77, 033 on the basis that the delay in giving option under section 11(1) was not condoned by the Commissioner of Income-tax Jamnagar and therefore the assessee s claim under section 11(1) for the aforesaid amount was to be disallowed and was accordingly disallowed. - 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. - 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 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.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to communication dated March 21, 2002, and subsequent assessment orders dated March 27, 2002.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a trust set up by the Government of Gujarat for desert research, challenged a communication and assessment orders for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Income-tax Officer made assessment orders based on this dismissal. The petitioner contested the lack of a personal hearing in the decision-making process, citing violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner relied on a Karnataka High Court decision emphasizing the need for a hearing in quasi-judicial functions.

The court considered the Karnataka High Court's principles and noted that decisions affecting a party's civil consequences require adherence to natural justice principles. Circular No. 273 highlighted the need for trusts to seek condonation of delays, with the Board authorizing Commissioners of Income-tax to admit belated applications. The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling specific conditions for condoning delays, as outlined in the circular. The impugned decision lacked a hearing for the petitioner-trust and did not indicate consideration of relevant criteria set by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

Consequently, the court found the decision flawed due to non-consideration of relevant criteria and absence of a personal hearing for the petitioner. The court quashed the decision and directed a fresh consideration with a personal hearing for the petitioner's representative. Regarding the challenge to assessment orders, the court noted that the assessment would depend on the outcome of the application for condoning delay. If the delay is condoned, the petitioner can seek rectification of the assessment orders. The petition was allowed with directions for a fresh decision and assessment consideration based on the condonation outcome.