9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98-99 and 1999-2000, respectively, on March 7, 2000, and March 27, 2000. The first appellant took up the matter for assessment. The assessee was directed to appear in his office on May 23, 2000, at 11 a.m. Though the representative of the assessee appeared, no hearing took place as the first appellant was not present on that day. While so, the assessee was served with exhibit P7 order dated July 12, 2000, passed by the assessing authority under section 142(2A) directing it to get its accounts pertaining to the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 audited by Shri P.E.B. Menon, Balan & Co., XXIX/200, Bank Road, Alwaye, who has been nominated by the second appellant and to furnish a report in Form No. 6B as pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All); Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1999] 236 ITR 671 (Cal); Pradeep Maheswari v. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 453 (Ker) and Living Media Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 268 (SC). The relevant statutory provision to be interpreted in this case is extracted below for convenient reference. "142. (2A) If, at any stage of the proceedings before him, the Assessing Officer, having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g is statutorily excluded, any administrator taking a decision affecting the rights of a citizen, is bound to hear him. Byles, J. in Cooper v. Wandsworth, Board of Works (143 ER 414) said, "A long course of decisions beginning with Dr. Bentley's case [1723] 1 Str 557 and ending with some very recent cases, establish that although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the Legislature." This statement of law has been quoted with approval by our apex court in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, 624. De Smith in his Judicial Review of Administrative Action, says that "where a statute authorising interference with proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1981] 51 Comp Cas 210; AIR 1981 SC 818, 831 has held as follows: "Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing, shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative process or frustrate the need for utmost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
