TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilar facts we propose to dispose of them by a common order. The petitioner contends that, (a) the impugned order has no backing or reasons and suffers from infirmity of non-application of the mind by the authority to the requirements of the provisions of s. 18(2A) of " the Act ", (b) the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, and (c) his claim for waiver was turned down mechanically without due application of mind. For late submissions of the returns the WTO imposed penalties on the assessee under s. 18(1) of the Act for the assessment years. The assessee filed four separate applications under s. 18(2A) of " the Act " before the Commissioner. The Commissioner held that the disclosures of the wealth had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not constitute conclusive defence and reasonable cause contemplated under s. 18(1)(a). It is apparent that the learned Commissioner overlooked the respective scope, ambit and contours of s. 18(1)(a) and s. 18(2A). The question of reasonable cause crops up for consideration under s. 18(1)(a) and if the authority concerned is satisfied that there is a reasonable cause for the delay then there cannot be any occasion to levy penalty and the question of invoking s. 18(2A) never arises. Such order may be corrected by the Commissioner in exercise of powers of revision under the Act, When there is a reasonable cause for the delay no occasion arises to levy penalty, and the assessee is entitled to be exonerated. Section 18(1)(a) operates in the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebefore. The Commissioner is to consider all such relevant factors to find out whether the assessee should be asked to pay the penalty for the wrong committed by him. The quality of the wrong or default is undoubtedly a relevant factor. However, the factors indicated above are only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, one thing is for sure that though the assessee is penalised for his default the Commissioner may waive the penalty imposable. In the instant case, none of the relevant factors required to be considered by the learned Commissioner was taken note of but he considered the factor not germane to the decision, namely, whether the bona fide explanations of the assessee constituted a defence and a reasonable cause contemplated un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural justice and springs from the constitutional provisions contained in arts. 32, 226, 136 and 227 of the Constitution., We rely on Mahabir Prasad v. State of UP, AIR 1970 SC 1302; State of a Gujarat v. Krishna Cinema, AIR 1971 SC 1650, Chowgule Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 2021 ; State of Punjab v. Bakhtawar Singh, AIR 1972 SC 2083; Narayan Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2086, Siemens Engg. Mfg. Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785. An adjudicatory authority cannot disarm the court by taking refuge in silence. The petitioners have pointed out that there is no reason ascribed why the penalties were not waived. We find nothing but silence. Giving of reasons by the Commissioner while exercising power under s. 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exercise calls for a reasoned order. (f) It is a general duty of the quasi-judicial authority to act fairly. Fairness founded on reasons is the essence of the guarantee epitomised in art. 14. We extract what their Lordships observed in Manager, Government Branch Press v. D. B. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429, 434. " 'The giving of reasons', as Lord Denning put it in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 1 All ER 1148 (CA), is one of the fundamentals of good administration and, to recall the words of this court in Khudiram v. State of West Bengal [1975] 2 SCR 832 at p. 845 ; AIR 1975 SC 550 at p. 558, in a Government of laws 'there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial reviewability'. The executive no less than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means at least this: the statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous considerations which it ought not to have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith ; nevertheless the decision will be set aside. That as established by Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 (HL), which is a landmark in modern administrative law. " (k) When the concept of " error of law " includes giving of inconsistent, unintelligible or inadequate reasons, it must take within i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
