9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1979-80 and 1982-83. The assessee-petitioner applied for waiver on November 5, 1986, when the Income-tax Officer, by his separate orders dated September 9, 1985, claimed in respect of the assessment year 1979-80 interest of Rs. 2,06,547 and for the other year a sum of Rs. 1,63,000. The Income-tax Officer raised the demand for interest as provided under the law taking into account the finally sustained demands for the two years and interest was calculated from the date when the payment covered by the assessments was due and the date when the demand of interest was made. Notice was issued in the special leave petitions confined to the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the Board declined to exercise its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of the report of the Commissioner. The order shows that the report of the Commissioner has been taken into consideration. It is not even the petitioner's assertion that the Commissioner's recommendations have not been accepted by the Board. There is no procedural statutory requirement of a hearing for the disposal of an application under section 220(2A) of the Act. The legal position is that where a statutory provision does not exclude natural justice, the requirement of affording an opportunity of being heard can be assumed, particularly when the proceedings are quasi-judicial. Exclusion, however, can either be by a clear provision or inferred from the scheme, as also the nature of power which is being exercised. We have alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e maintainability of the petitions under article 136 of the Constitution as the petitioner, instead of going before the High Court, has come directly to the Supreme Court. Reliance was placed by Dr. Gauri Shanker for the Department on the observations of this court in P. N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [1988] 172 ITR 624 (SC) ; [1987] JT 4 SC 232. We do not propose to examine that aspect in this case taking into consideration the fact that notice has already been issued on the special leave petitions and the matters have been pending for more than two years in this court. We are satisfied that the petitioner would be prejudiced if, at this stage, it was required to move the High Court. Both the special petitions are, for the rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
