it2025_00915 — Applicant, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in the year 2008, who was holding additional charge as CIT (A)-XXIV, VIII, etc., in addition to this original post of CIT(A)-VI, disposed of a case of pending demand against M/s. Ellenbarie Exim Ltd. for Assessment Year 2005-06 in a matter of three days. Due to the aforesaid case, he was issued with a charge-sheet, dated 27-12-2017 against which Applicant appealed by his representation, dated 10-1-2018 for its withdrawal / cancellation. Tribunal hel

IT Rules

Applicant, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in the year 2008, who was holding additional charge as CIT (A)-XXIV, VIII, etc., in addition to this original post of CIT(A)-VI, disposed of a case of pending demand against M/s. Ellenbarie Exim Ltd. for Assessment Year 2005-06 in a matter of three days. Due to the aforesaid case, he was issued with a charge-sheet, dated 27-12-2017 against which Applicant appealed by his representation, dated 10-1-2018 for its withdrawal / cancellation. Tribunal held that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant is not acceptable as the system would not be able to function if this is done in a routine manner. Hence Tribunal set aside the charge-sheet as not maintainable — This chunk is discussing the role of ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) in reviewing decisions made by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), and how their decision may or may not align with that of ... — Facts : Applicant who was holding original post of CIT (A)-VI and was posted at Kolkata as Commissioner of Income Tax in 2008 was authorized to hold additional charge as CIT(A)-XXIV, VIII, etc. During the period 11-6-2008 to 30-7-2008, he had cleared a case which is the pending demand against M/s. Ellenbarie Exim Ltd., for the Assessment Year 2005-06. That case subsequently had gone to ITAT which set aside that order of the Applicant. The case is pending in Kolkata High Court by filing ITAT 168/2012, GA. No. 1961/2012 (M/s. Ellenbarie Exim Ltd., Kol. and another v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Kolkata & others. The said charge-sheet against the Applicant contains only one Article of charge for having deleted additional demand of ₹ 120.55 crores (Approx.) in the appeal in a matter of three days. That omission and commission is said to be Applicants, failure to maintain absolute integrity. As the Applicant's appeal to withdraw the charge-sheet having been rejected, this OA is filed by the Applicant for that withdrawal of the case against him. The charge-sheet issued to the Applicant is in regard to hurried clearance / deletion of the additional demand as noted above without giving reasonable opportunity to make counter submission to the Assessing Officer so as to arrive at an objective decision. The decision of the Applicant has been set aside by ITAT in 2016. If is stated that deletion of demand of ₹ 120.55 crores is due to lack of integrity on the part of the Applicant. It is observed in this connection of withdrawal and other duties connected to the demand by Income Tax Department (Appeal) is a quasi-judicial function, though the party concerned in withdrawal is a part of executive-structure. The demand or otherwise assessed by Assessing Officer is to be examined by the higher official. Being higher status officer, he may or may not agree with the Assessing Officer so as to maintain fairness and objectivity. The next hierarchy of CIT appeal is the ITAT who is to take objective decision after assessing the case in regard to the decision taken by CIT (Appeal). ITAT may or may not agree with the decision taken by CIT i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The above is the envisaged system. In the present case, the assessment of Assessing Officer who assessed the demand by CIT (Appeal) is a quasi-judicial nature. The agreement or disagreement in appeal in the quasi-judicial appallete order shall not be fair and would be against the scheme of things put in place. Functionaries in this system could not be immuned from the normal disciplinary proceedings for obvious and glaring misconduct, misbehaviour including lack of integrity in discharge of their functions. Principal Bench, Tribunal had done adjudication in a similar case in two other cases. On perusal of this adjudication, the case of the present Applicant is exactly similar to the adjudication in O.A. No. 201/2019. That Applicant has been charge-sheeted with 5 Articles of charges. However, the main charge is that of lack of integrity by granting relief to the Assessee to the tune of ₹ 55,67,22,264 within 10 days. On examining in detail, two issues are posed for consideration by the Tribunal. They are
(i) whether initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant as regards the discharge of her functions in quasi-judicial capacity is permissible in law and
(ii) whether the allegation contained in the charge-memo justify the proposed action. Tribunal held on those two issues that charge-memo is executive function and is required to be exercised on the basis of objective and verifiable material and not surmises, presumptions and imagination. Tribunal examined this case taking into account similar case explained above.:

IT Rules

Applicant, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in the year 2008, who was holding additional charge as CIT (A)-XXIV, VIII, etc., in addition to this original post of CIT(A)-VI, disposed of a case of pending demand against M/s. Ellenbarie Exim Ltd. for Assessment Year 2005-06 in a matter of three days. Due to the aforesaid case, he was issued with a charge-sheet, dated 27-12-2017 against which Applicant appealed by his representation, dated 10-1-2018 for its withdrawal / cancellation. Tribunal held that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant is not acceptable as the system would not be able to function if this is done in a routine manner. Hence Tribunal set aside the charge-sheet as not maintainable — This chunk is discussing the role of ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) in reviewing decisions made by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), and how their decision may or may not align with that of ... — Facts : Applicant who was holding original post of CIT (A)-VI and was posted at Kolkata as Commissioner of Income Tax in 2008 was authorized to hold additional charge as CIT(A)-XXIV, VIII, etc. During the period 11-6-2008 to 30-7-2008, he had cleared a case which is the pending demand against M/s. Ellenbarie Exim Ltd., for the Assessment Year 2005-06. That case subsequently had gone to ITAT which set aside that order of the Applicant. The case is pending in Kolkata High Court by filing ITAT 168/2012, GA. No. 1961/2012 (M/s. Ellenbarie Exim Ltd., Kol. and another v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Kolkata & others. The said charge-sheet against the Applicant contains only one Article of charge for having deleted additional demand of ₹ 120.55 crores (Approx.) in the appeal in a matter of three days. That omission and commission is said to be Applicants, failure to maintain absolute integrity. As the Applicant's appeal to withdraw the charge-sheet having been rejected, this OA is filed by the Applicant for that withdrawal of the case against him. The charge-sheet issued to the Applicant is in regard to hurried clearance / deletion of the additional demand as noted above without giving reasonable opportunity to make counter submission to the Assessing Officer so as to arrive at an objective decision. The decision of the Applicant has been set aside by ITAT in 2016. If is stated that deletion of demand of ₹ 120.55 crores is due to lack of integrity on the part of the Applicant. It is observed in this connection of withdrawal and other duties connected to the demand by Income Tax Department (Appeal) is a quasi-judicial function, though the party concerned in withdrawal is a part of executive-structure. The demand or otherwise assessed by Assessing Officer is to be examined by the higher official. Being higher status officer, he may or may not agree with the Assessing Officer so as to maintain fairness and objectivity. The next hierarchy of CIT appeal is the ITAT who is to take objective decision after assessing the case in regard to the decision taken by CIT (Appeal). ITAT may or may not agree with the decision taken by CIT i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The above is the envisaged system. In the present case, the assessment of Assessing Officer who assessed the demand by CIT (Appeal) is a quasi-judicial nature. The agreement or disagreement in appeal in the quasi-judicial appallete order shall not be fair and would be against the scheme of things put in place. Functionaries in this system could not be immuned from the normal disciplinary proceedings for obvious and glaring misconduct, misbehaviour including lack of integrity in discharge of their functions. Principal Bench, Tribunal had done adjudication in a similar case in two other cases. On perusal of this adjudication, the case of the present Applicant is exactly similar to the adjudication in O.A. No. 201/2019. That Applicant has been charge-sheeted with 5 Articles of charges. However, the main charge is that of lack of integrity by granting relief to the Assessee to the tune of ₹ 55,67,22,264 within 10 days. On examining in detail, two issues are posed for consideration by the Tribunal. They are
(i) whether initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant as regards the discharge of her functions in quasi-judicial capacity is permissible in law and
(ii) whether the allegation contained in the charge-memo justify the proposed action. Tribunal held on those two issues that charge-memo is executive function and is required to be exercised on the basis of objective and verifiable material and not surmises, presumptions and imagination. Tribunal examined this case taking into account similar case explained above.:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text