ORIENTAL HOTELS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in C. No. 1121(75)III of 1988, and consequently to direct the first respondent to grant the order waiving interest for the assessment year 1984-85 to the petitioner In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately requested this court to dismiss the writ petition for want of the merits. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavit together with all the relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. In the above circumstances, the only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not.

(2.) IN this case the petitioner herein filed a return of income on June 28, 1984, declaring a total income of Rs. 15, 76, 580. The second respondent herein completed the assessment only on February 3, 1987, determining the total income of Rs. 28, 01, 140, while completing the assessment, he made certain disallowances and also levied interest of Rs. 13, 94, 328 under section 215 of the INcome-tax Act. The main grievance of the petitioner herein is that while levying interest under section 215 of the INcome-tax Act the second respondent did not give any opportunity to the petitioner before passing the order and the order passed by the second respondent is not a speaking order. INter alia, it is contended by the petitioner that before levying interest under section 215 of the INcome-tax Act the respondent did not give an opportunity to the petitioner. Failure to give an opportunity to the petitioner amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. He also states that the High Courts have taken the view that failure to give an opportunity before levying a penalty is bad and not in accordance with law. IN this regard, learned counsel relied on the following judgments of the Supreme Court (sic) (1) Malayalam Plantation's case and (2) M. G. Bros.'s case. That apart he also relies on a case decided by this court in W. P. No. 11477 of 1986, dated December 20, 1986. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order for levying of interest by the respondent should be a speaking order and in this case, no reason is given by the respondent and it is a non-speaking order. It is contended by the petitioner that the order should contain reasons and without giving proper reasons the order passed by the respondent is illegal, bad and without any justification. Therefore, he states that the passing of a non-speaking order amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is to be quashed. It is also contended by the petitioner that he filed the return of income on June 28, 1984, and the same was completed by the respondent after a period of 31 months.