2023 (11) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of principles of natural justice in view of the fact that opportunity of personal hearing was not granted nor has materials relied upon been furnished apart from the fact that the impugned order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is non-speaking. 2. It is submitted by Ms.Durga V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner that Courts have consistently held that the power under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is quasi-judicial in nature and orders ought to be passed in compliance with principles of natural justice. 3. To the contrary, it is submitted by Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Respondents by placing reliance on ground (b) of the counter that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oards to admit an applications or a claim or return filed after the expiry of the period specified for avoiding genuine hardship caused in any case or class of cases. Thus, the statute makes it incumbent upon the Board to consider the case pleaded under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Act by an assessee who files his return beyond time. This power has to be exercised by the Board and the Board alone and not by any other authority. It is not possible to hold that this power is administrative when it relates to condonation of delay in a case where the return is filed beyond the period prescribed. The Board is required to exercise its discretion by taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and deter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act wherein it was held as under: "8. ......We are entirely in agreement with the finding rendered in the said judgment. It is not in dispute that such applications from individual assessees are also entertained by the Board and disposed of. In our opinion, no difference could be seen from either of the Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 119(2)(a) of the Act for the reason that even though Section 119(2)(a) only relates to the power of the Board to issue certain guidelines and principles on specific matters, while it entertains the application and disposes of the same, it acts as a quasi-judicial authority and if that be so, a quasi-judicial authority is expected in law to give reasons on consideration of the materials available ....