Prasad Associates v. The Union of India / The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Tiruchirapalli / The Income-tax Officer, Ward-(1), Salem
[Citation -2017-LL-0724-15]
| Citation | 2017-LL-0724-15 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Prasad Associates |
| Respondent Name | The Union of India / The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Tiruchirapalli / The Income-tax Officer, Ward-(1), Salem |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 24/07/2017 |
| Assessment Year | 1997-98, 1999-00 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | principles of natural justice • condonation of delay • speaking order • opportunity of being heard |
| Bot Summary: | The Income Tax Officer, Ward Salem -7 Respondents 2 Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records on the file of C.No. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sridhar For Respondents : Mr.A.N.R. Jayapratap Standing Counsel ORDER Heard Mr.S.Sridhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.A.N.R. Jayapratap, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication sent by the second respondent, dated 18.07.2005, on the application filed by the petitioner, for condoning the delay under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1999 to 2000. The petitioner is before this Court, challenging the impugned 3 proceedings, not on the merits of the case, but on the ground that, it is against the principles of natural justice, as the second respondent has not even mentioned as to how the petitioner's Application does not merit consideration, nor the decision or direction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes has been appended to the impugned communication, and the second respondent did not afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. What has been sought for by the petitioner, is for condonation of delay by filing Petition under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act. In any event, the same being quasi judicial function, it is appropriate for the second respondent to afford an opportunity to the petitioner or its authorized representative, and then, pass a speaking order, so as to enable the petitioner to know as to where, they stand. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, 4 the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration, who shall consider the petitioner's case and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law. |