9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is whether the final conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge that the explanation of the petitioner was acceptable so as to falling in category of paragraph-2(b) of the notification dated 26.06.2006 Annexure 'B' can be sustained or not? 5. The short facts of the case appear to be that the respondent-assessee filed the return of income for assessment year 2010-2011 on 04.10.2010. Thereafter on 31.03.2011, the respondent filed revised return by computing interest payable under Section 234C of the Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). On 11.04.2011, the respondent filed petition for waiver of the interest under Section 2 34C of the Act by taking basis of the notification dated 23.05.1996 and 26.06.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the respondent. 9. At the outset, we may record that it is by now well settled that the judicial review is available against the order of lower authority or quasi-judicial authority in the decision making process, but the power of judicial review is not available as that of the Court of appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless a very extraordinary case is made out to make a departure therefrom. 10. This Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution in a given case if finds that in the decision making process, the grounds considered by the lower authority are extraneous or non-germane to the exercise of the power, it may strike down the decision on the premise that there is no proper considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or was in contemplation of the assessee while considering paragraph-2 (b) of the notification dated 26.06.200 6, all other facts and circumstances relevant to the facts for recording the aforesaid conclusion are required to be considered and the notification and more particularly clause 2(b) cannot read in a restricted manner. In our view, upto observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph-23, no case is made out for interference, since the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge upto pargraph-23 cannot be said to be perverse or by committing error on the face of the record. 12. However, so far as the conclusion recorded at paragraph-24, we find that there is merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e lower authority and after having interfered in the decision making process, the matter was required to be remanded keeping the rest of the aspects open, of course, by excluding the aspects which are already considered by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In our view, such an exercise of jurisdiction of accepting the explanation of the assessee is at par with the appellate power which in normal circumstances would not be available in the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not find that any abnormal circumstances are recorded to make a departure from the normal principles of relegating the matter to the authority for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Hence, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
