TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (11) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent years under consideration are 1968-69 to 1974-75. The assessee made an application on December 18, 1976, under s. 18B of the Act praying for waiver of penalty in respect of the assessment years referred to above. The Commissioner passed a brief order on this application rejecting the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following three points in support of this petition : (i) that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order ; (ii) that the impugned order is not a speaking order and no reasons have been recorded in support of the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner ; and (iii) that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Commissioner is deemed to be a quasi-judicial tribunal for the purpose of deciding an application under s. 18B and, therefore, he is bound to follow the principles of natural justice and should judicially review the entire material before him and exercise his discretion judicially. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on K. C. Vedadri v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 76 (Mad) and Rasiklal Ranchhodbhai Patel v. CWT [1980] 121 ITR 219 (Guj) and S. Sannaiah v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 435 (Kar). It may be noticed that under s. 18B of the Act, the Commissioner has been given discretion to reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or imposable on a person i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....required to record a finding whether the assessee had voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of his net wealth. We may, at this stage, observe that no facts or figures have been given by the learned Commissioner in support of his finding that the disclosure of net wealth by the assessee is neither voluntary nor full and true. We are constrained to observe that the finding is very cryptic and since it is open to scrutiny by the court, a speaking order giving reasons should have been passed. As regards the necessity of personal hearing, it was held in Indian Telephone Industries Co-operative Society's case [1972] 86 ITR 566 (Kar) that the nature of the power conferred on the Commissioner under s. 271(4A) of the I.T. Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is also necessary that the principle of audi alteram Partem should be applied before passing the order as the Commissioner acts in a quasi-judicial manner. No doubt, discretion has been vested in him to reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or imposable, but the discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. In S. Sannaiah's case [1974] 95 ITR 435 (Kar), it was observed that the order of refusal to exercise the discretion should be a speaking order as the same is open to scrutiny by the court. In our opinion, it is clear from the language of the section itself that if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the Commissioner cannot refuse to reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposable as he is under a stat....