TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding Counsel for the Revenue, has taken a strong exception to the use of the expression 'unreasonable' in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The expression 'unreasonable' denotes anything, which is not reasonable and which will not stand to reason. In the instant case, unreasonableness would be in not providing an adequate opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her stand especially when the application for waiver was taken up for hearing nearly after 6 1/2 years. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay caused at the Departmental level. Therefore, any opportunity to be given to the petitioner should be adequate, real and sufficient. If these factors are not fulfilled, then it would undoubtedly mean that the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.3.1996. When the said application was pending, the said Sri.R.Eswaramurthy died on 20.8.1996. The petitioner - his wife, as the legal heir, pursued the matter before the Settlement Commission and the final order dated 30.7.2002 was passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Act. The petitioner was permitted to pay the tax along with interest in twelve (12) equal quarterly instalments. The first quarterly instalment commenced from 30.9.2002. 3. The petitioner, in due compliance with the directions issued by the Commission, completed the entire payment by 15.3.2010. The total amount paid by the petitioner is ₹ 1,90,67,285/-. Out of the said amount, the tax due was ₹ 1,50,55,610/- and the interest was &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Settlement Commission on 26.04.1996. However, within a period of four months, thereafter, the petitioner's husband died and the petitioner, as legal heir, pursued the matter. The Settlement Commission passed an order on 30.07.2002. The petitioner has remitted the tax between the periods 2004 and 2010, along with appropriate interest and interest on interest. 4. In the year 2011, the respondent issued notice claiming interest under Rule 5 of the said Act. The petitioner submitted an application for waiver on 21.03.2011. After about seven years, the petitioner received an intimation stating that the personal hearing has been fixed on 30.05.2017. Though the petitioner did not have reasonable time, yet, she contacted her Chartered Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meantime. 6. After the notice was accepted on behalf of the respondent, the respondent instructed the learned Senior Standing Counsel through the Income Tax Officer (HQ) (Tech. TPS-2), Coimbatore, vide communication dated 13.9.2017. As noticed by this Court while granting the order of interim injunction, the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity to put forth her submissions. This is so because the application for waiver was submitted on 21.3.2011, but it was taken up for hearing on 30.5.2017. It is not known as to why the application for waiver was kept pending for such a long period. 7. By notice dated 26.5.2017, the respondent informed that her case was posted for personal hearing on 30.5.2017 thereby hardly giving three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence purpose. 10. Be that as it may, if the respondent is to take a decision based on such a report, principles of natural justice deem fit that the petitioner shall be put on notice about such report. Therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent that the assessee possessed necessary means to make payment of tax is not borne out by records nor it is clear as to how such a finding was recorded. This is more so because the properties, which were owned by the assessee, have been attached by the Department. It is not clear either from the impugned order or from the parawise comments furnished by the Income Tax Officer concerned that the Department was conscious of the fact that the properties owned by the assessee were attached by the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration. 12. This Court had an occasion to consider an identical issue in the case of Mani Vs. CIT [reported in (2010) 320 ITR 472] and held that when an application is filed under Section 220(2A) of the Act, the Authority concerned is called upon to take a quasi judicial decision and if he is satisfied that the reasons assigned in the application would bring the case under any of the conditions in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 220(2A) of the Act, then he has power either to reduce or waive the amount of interest and while doing so, the Authority concerned is bound to record reasons since the power is exercised as a quasi judicial power. 13. In the instant case, I find that the twin reasons, which have been referred to in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
