TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of party Amount (Rs.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Raj Kumar Coal Depot 2,42,273 2. Chandan Coal Depot 1,82,487 3. Shiv Coal Supplier 1,72,902 4. Shailendra Coal Agency 1,25,258 5. Bhawani Coal Co. 26,400 6. Singh Coal Co. 2,29,515 ------------------ 9,78,835 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The position of the accounts of the aforesaid parties in the assessee's books was reflected as under : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessment year 1984-85 Assessment year 1985-86 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Purchases Pay- Balance Purchasesment Payment Balance as on as on March March 31, 1985 31, 1986 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and of Rs. 20,000 under section 273(2)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Commissioner under section 273A, sub-section (1) and sub-section (4), of the Act for waiver of penalties. By order dated March 26, 1990, annexure "K-1" to the writ petition, the Commissioner made a reference to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") for seeking approval under section 273A(2) stating as follows : "In a way the submissions of the assessee are correct as revised return filed by the assessee surrendering the amount of Rs. 8,66,325 can be taken as voluntary because this was done without any notice being issued to him. The notice issued in 1985-86 making certain general enquiries from the assessee regarding the liabilities does not explicitly show any direction by the Department of the concealment surrendered by the assessee subsequently. In view of this I am of the opinion that the assessee deserves relief under section 273A and the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) may be dropped... ...However, the voluntary nature of the surrender cannot be totally ignored also because by the time the assessee filed the revised return the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income or of the inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of such income, voluntarily and in good faith, made full and true disclosure of such particulars and had also co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment of his income and has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under this Act in respect of the relevant assessment year. It is submitted that satisfaction has-to be recorded by the Commissioner and not by the Board. It is urged that the Board is not at all competent to record a finding that there was no voluntary disclosure, because the power to record satisfaction whether or not there was voluntary disclosure, is vested in the Commissioner. It is further submitted that even if the Board is assumed to be competent to record its own satisfaction about the nature of disclosure-whether voluntary or involuntary-then it was incumbent upon the Board to afford a hearing to the petitioner in case it chose to differ from the Commissioner ; (iii) that the jurisdiction of the Board under section 273A(2) is limited in that it can simply accord approval to the extent whether waiver is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rement 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 already noticed that the power of the Board which was invoked was discretionary. It was to be exercised on the basis of the recommendation of the Commissioner and the material provided by the assessee. Personal hearing in every situation is not necessary and there can be compliance with the requirements of natural justice of hearing when a right to represent is given and the decision is made on a consideration thereof. Keeping the nature of the power invoked for exercise, the fact that the petitioner had an opportunity to represent its case in writing and the further fact that the Board had taken into consideration the report of the Commissioner in the background that it is not the allegation of the petitioner that the Commissioner's recommendations were different, we do not think, that in the facts of the case, it can be held that the petitioner was entitled to a right of being personally heard before its petition under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
