Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Shib Shankar Mondal & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 August, 2013
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
25 27.08.13 W.P. 24838 (W) of 2013
akd
M/s. Shib Shankar Mondal & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
--------
Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury, Mr. Sayantan Bose, Ms. Piyali Dutta.
... for the petitioners.
Mr. R. Bharadwaj.
... for the I. T. Authority.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 22nd July, 2013 passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The return filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2010-2011 was considered and an assessment order is passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 28th March, 2013 by enhancing the net income amount. Subsequently the demand was raised under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act for a sum of Rs. 4,11,510/-. The petitioner carried the said assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which is pending.
Amidst the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner invoked the provisions contained under Section 220 (6) of the said Act by filing an application before the Assessing Authority. The order impugned would reveal that it is bereft of reasons.
It is no doubt true that the Administrative Authorities or the Quasi-judicial Authority or the Tribunal are bound to record the reasons, more particularly when the order is amenable to further challenge before the higher authority, as it would 2 enable the higher forum to ascertain the process by which such decision has been arrived. The right to know the reason is the right of the person and any infraction and/or violation thereof would entail the unsustainability of the decision.
The aforesaid principles is fortified in an unreported judgement rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Binay Krishna Das vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. 6571 (W) of 2012) decided on 16th April, 2012 in the following words :-
"The impugned order is a totally non-speaking order. There is not a whisper of the reasons for rejection of the stay petition. It is also not understood why the petitioner has been requested to pay 50% of the total arrear demand. It is not clear why the petitioner has been exempted from the balance 50% or for that matter why he has been required to pay only 50%. No opportunity of hearing has also been given to the petitioner. The impugned order is gross violation of principle of natural justice and patently sustainable in the eye of law."
(emphasis supplied) This Court, therefore, quash and set aside the order dated 22nd July, 2013 passed by the Assessing Authoity having no appropriate reasons for dismissal of the said application filed under Section 220 (6) of the said Act.
The Assessing Authority i.e. ITO, Ward-1 (4), Hooghly, is directed to consider the application afresh upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representative and shall 3 dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The authority shall make an endeavour to dispose of the said application within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Needless to mention that this Court has not gone into the merit of the said application and the authorities shall be free to decide the same without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
(HARISH TANDON, J.)