2025 (5) TMI 623

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessment year 2011-12 was rejected on the limited ground that the impugned order has been passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they are challenging only the decision making process of the order and not the decision, on the limited ground that personal hearing ought to have been granted while exercising discretionary power under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act. Failure to grant a personal hearing would prove fatal to valid exercise of power under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act. 3. To the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had not filed its return for more than 6 years and therefore any claim of r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uasi-judicial in nature and thus ought to be made in compliance with principles of natural justice which inter-alia requires the authority to grant a reasonable opportunity apart from assingning reasons. In other words, an order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act ought to be a speaking order. In this regard, it may be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of H.S.Anantharamaiah vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others reported in (1993) 201 ITR 526 (KAR), wherein it was held as under: "9. ......Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Act enables or empowers the Boards to admit an applications or a claim or return filed after the expiry of the period specified for avoiding genuine hardship caused i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ho is going to be affected by the decision of the Board. Therefore, the Board is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, either oral hearing or through submission of written arguments with reference to the points made against the assessee for not granting the relief sought for by him........" 5.1. The above judgment of the Karnataka High Court was quoted with approval by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Precot Mills Ltd., vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others reported in (2010) 321 ITR 293 (Mad), while considering Section 119(2)(a) of the 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 t....