Skip to content


Venilal Dwarkadas Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case Number O. J. C. No. 324 of 1965
Reported in[1972]84ITR722(Orissa)
AppellantVenilal Dwarkadas Mehta
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax.
Cases ReferredDwarka Nath v. Income
Excerpt:
.....followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. apart from that, the claim of the orissa state financial corporation as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire- purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the state financial corporation act, 1951 or the heirs and successors of such persons. procedure is provided in the act, 1951 and the rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. if such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not..........30, 1964, under section 33a(2) without hearing the assessee. the assessee accordingly filed a review application asking for the hearing of the revisions in his presence. the review application was disposed of on november 23, 1964, after giving a hearing to the assessee on the question whether he was entitled to hearing in the revisions. the commissioner of income-tax, following sugan chand saraogi v. commissioner of income-tax, held that the order to be passed under section 33a(2) is an administrative order and the assessee was not entitled to any hearing. this writ application has been filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution for quashing the aforesaid orders passed on january 30, 1964, and november 23, 1964, refusing to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard in.....
Judgment:

G. K. MISRA J. - The assessee filed revisions against the orders imposing penalty under section 46(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for non-payment of tax. These revisions were disposed of on January 30, 1964, under section 33A(2) without hearing the assessee. The assessee accordingly filed a review application asking for the hearing of the revisions in his presence. The review application was disposed of on November 23, 1964, after giving a hearing to the assessee on the question whether he was entitled to hearing in the revisions. The Commissioner of Income-tax, following Sugan Chand Saraogi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, held that the order to be passed under section 33A(2) is an administrative order and the assessee was not entitled to any hearing. This writ application has been filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the aforesaid orders passed on January 30, 1964, and November 23, 1964, refusing to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard in the revisions.

There was some controversy with regard to the right of the assessee to be heard at the revisional stage. The matter is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Dwarka Nath v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur, where their Lordships expressed the view that an order assailed before the Commissioner in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 33A(2) affects the rights of the assessee and the jurisdiction conferred under that section is a judicial one. In that view of the matter, the assessee is entitled to a hearing in revision.

In view of the Supreme Court decision we quash the orders dated January 30, 1964, and November 23, 1964, and issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, to hear the assessee in the revisions.

The writ application is allowed, but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

R. N. MISRA J. - I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //