ANAND SAMRAT CO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andhra Pradesh-II, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein dated 21.2.2000 made under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act (for short `the Act') rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under the said Section for waiver of the interest levied under Section 220(2) filed this writ petition assailing the validity of the same.

(2.) THE 1st respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner on two grounds. THE 1st ground is that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed an application on 27.11.1987 and that application was rejected by his predecessor by his order dated 25.02.1988 and therefore the second petition filed by the petitioner if it is entertained would tantamount to an application seeking review of the earlier order dated 25.02.1988 and such a course is impermissible. THE second reason assigned by the 1st respondent to reject the application is that a major portion of the arrears were collected by the Tax Recovery Officer only by way of sale of land, and that fact shows that the assessee did not cooperate in the proceedings for the recovery of amounts due from it.

(3.) IT is pertinent to note that the order that may be made by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 220(2A) of the Act is a statutory order and it is liable to be reviewed by the Constitutional Courts under Article 226 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India. If the statutory authority does not disclose reasons in support of the decision, then it becomes very practically impossible for the Constitutional Courts to know what are the reasons that have gone into the decision-making. In that view of the matter, the statutory authorities are bound to disclose reasons in support of their decisions or orders. Be that as it may, we cannot appreciate the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax Act that the rejection of the earlier application dated 27.11.1987 filed by the petitioner would come in the way of he considering the second application dated 28.4.1992. The second petition was filed only when the proceedings attained the finality. In that view of the matter, there was no legal embargo for the 1st respondent to decide the application on merits. In the impugned order also, the Commissioner except stating that the petitioner did not cooperate in the proceedings for the recovery of amounts due from them, has not disclosed any reason, as to how he has reached such a conclusion. On the other hand, it is very pertinent to notice the statement made by the petitioner in the application dated 28.4.1992. The relevant portion of the application reads :