The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and addressing the issues raised in a revisional application in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Debangsu Basak, J.

Affidavit filed in Court be taken on record.

2. An order dated December 21, 2016 passed by the revisional authority is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the impugned order suffers from view of breach of principles of natural justice. According to him, the High Court, while remanding the revisional petition for decision to the revisional authority by the order dated September 8, 2016, it required the revisional authority to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The notice issued by the authorities subsequent to such order, said that, personal appearance was not necessary. The impugned order records that, none was present on behalf of the petitioners. According to him, such a stand taken by the authorities is contrary to the express direction contained in the order dated September 8, 2015 and, therefore, the impugned order stands vitiated.

4. On the merits of the matter, he submits that, the petitioners filed an application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961 raising primarily two issues. The petitioners wanted interest to be paid under Section 244(1)(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act of 1961 under which, interest was allowed by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, the petitioners wanted interest on delayed payment of interest which the Assessing Officer did not allow. According to him, none of the two issues have been decided upon by the impugned order.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, the impugned order is detailed and contains reasons. The authorities proceeded on the basis of the order of the High Court. The petitioners did not appear before the revisional authority and, therefore, cannot make out a case of breach of principles of natural justice. Moreover, since the impugned order is detailed, no interference is called for.

6. It appears from the records made available to the Court that, the petitioners filed an application under Section 264 of the Act of 1961, being aggrieved by an order of assessment of the Assessing Officer dated May 6, 2004 in respect of assessment year 1983-1984 dealing with the issue to refund. The petitioners primarily canvassed two points before the revisional authority. One of the points is that, the petitioners are entitled to interest under Section 244(1)(A) of the Act of 1961 rather than Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act of 1961 as allowed. The other point is that, the petitioners are entitled to interest on delayed payment of interest. Such revisional application was disposed of initially by an order dated March 31, 2006. Such revisional order was challenged by the writ petitioners in a writ petition being W.P. No.1148 of 2006. The impugned order dated March 31, 2006 passed by the revisional authority was set aside by the order dated December 8, 2016. The following directions were issued :-

"It appears from the order impugned passed by the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated March 31, 2006 that the merits of the claim have not been pronounced upon.

It would be appropriate to request the Commissioner of Income-tax to consider the revision petition under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. The points raised by the parties are kept open. Needless to say, the Commissioner will pass a reasoned order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and will communicate such reasoned order to the parties forthwith thereafter. It is expected that the Commissioner will complete the entire exercise within twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order."

7. Subsequent to the order dated September 8, 2016, the revisional authority issued a letter dated September 28, 2016 fixing October 13, 2016 as the date of hearing. Such writing said that, the personal appearance was not necessary. There are co