it2025_00916 — The impugned charge memorandum against the Applicant, an IRS Officer of 1986 batch was set aside. Her promotion kept in sealed cover should be opened. If the Applicant is found fit for promotion, the benefit of pomotion shall be extended to the Applicant from the date when her junior was promoted with all consequential benefits

IT Rules

The impugned charge memorandum against the Applicant, an IRS Officer of 1986 batch was set aside. Her promotion kept in sealed cover should be opened. If the Applicant is found fit for promotion, the benefit of pomotion shall be extended to the Applicant from the date when her junior was promoted with all consequential benefits — The chunk pertains to the defense presented by the applicant in response to charges that she exhibited undue haste in handling an appeal, which was long pending before her tenure as Commissioner of I... — Facts: Applicant, an IRS Officer of 1986 batch and who was holding at present the post of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax filed this OA. In the year 2013, she functioned as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). She was issued with charge memorandum, dated 14-8-2018 alleging that she entered into collusive arrangement with Shri Chaman Lal Negi, then ACIT, Patna Circle - I and the Assessing Officer while disposing of an appeal preferred by M/s. Ganga Carriers Pvt. Ltd. (GCPL). The second Article of charge was that, she prompted Shri Chaman Lal Negi to submit his remand reports in haste, recklessly and without due diligence and application of mind. She did not channelize remand report through the proper authority. Thus she ignored the various observations made by Assessing Officer who completed such assessment. The subject matter of appeal is said to be ₹ 55, 67, 22,264. This OA is filed challenging the charge memorandum. Applicant filed a reply stating that the Articles of charges are incorrect. Hence she challenged the punishment order. Principal contention urged in this OA is that, the entire charge-memo is in relation to the disposal of an appeal by the Applicant in her quasi-juducial capacity and that the same cannot be the subject matter of disciplinary proeeedings. The issues that arise are, whether the proceedings against the Applicant as regards the charges of functions in quasi-juducial capacity is permissible in law and whether the allegations contained in the charge-memo prima facie justify the proposed action. Adjudication of disputes by a quasi-judicial authority is rampant in direct and indirect taxation. The Authority should ensure that neither the assessse nor State are put to a loss on account of long pendency of adjudiction before regular courts. Officer entrusted with quasi-judicial functions partakes the character of an administrator and adjudicator. A modicum of independence is required to be given to such quasi-judicial authority. If the quasi-judicial authority decided a case with ulterior motive, administration has the option of taking action on the authority. This view is prominent consideration in case of Union of India v. A.N. Saxena of Apex Court. Paras. 7 and 8 of that case is reproduced. This is reiterated in Zunjarro Bhikaji Nagarkar's case. The details in that case is stated. The decision of High Court on appeal is reproduced. In the case of S. Rajaguru's case, the Apex Court referred to the above judgment wherein Paras. 42 and 43 are referred for clarity. From the above, there is no prohibition as such against the initiation of disciplinary procedings against an officer in relation to discharge of quasi-judicial functions, but it must be done with care and caution. Disciplinary authority in this case does have a power to initiate disciplinary proceedings in relation to discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the Applicant herein also subject to availability of adequate material even at the stage of issue of charge-sheet to ensure that the power of issuing charge-sheet is not misused. Analyzing the Articles of Charges I, II, III, IV and V which are reproduced in the judgment, they are in relation to disposal of an appeal filed by as an Assessee, M/s. GCPL by the Applicant in her capacity as CIT (Appeals), Patna. The gravamen of charges is contained in Article I and the remaining Articles of charge are supplementing the Article-I of the charges. The assessee granted relief not to an amount of ₹ 55, 67,27,264 but only for ₹ 31,62,57,725. But the reduction amount has not much consequence. Apex Court in number of cases has held that disciplinary proceedings pertain to the matter in which an Officer has discharged his quasi-judicial functions, the mere information is not adequate. Suspicion cannot constitute the basis. The relevant paragraph in Bhikaji Nagarkar's case earlier extracted in the judgment is to be followed scrupulously. In the present case, there is no allegation that the Applicant resorted to any acts of dishonesty or wrongful gain. The edifice of charge-memo is built on the wrong foundation of the so-called hasty disposal of the appeal. Hasty disposal of appeal may lead to an inference that it was done with a clear objective of conferring undue benefit on the assessee. In this case, the Applicant exhibited undue haste in taking up the appeal in question. Hence it becomes necessary to refer to some undisputed documents which are part of records. The appeal is pending since 2011, long before the Applicant joined at Patna. Predecessor to the Applicant received a letter to expedite the appeal from CCIT, Patna (A/5) which is reproduced. On 1-10-2012, CCIT addressed a letter (A/6) instructing the (CIT) Appeals, Patna to bifurcate the appeals based on demand i.e., ₹ 1 crore and others obviously for early disposal of the high value appeals. That letter is reproduced. Letter regarding disposal of appeals to expedite action to be taken is noted to bring down huge amount of revenue blocked therein. The appeal preferred by M/s. GCPL was long pending. Taking the letter for expeditous disposal of long pending cases, the Applicant addressed a letter to GCPL. It appears that DCPL is not co-operating in disposal of appeal. The said letter addressed to GCPL is reproduced. With the efforts of the Applicant, the appeal could be taken up for hearing. Hence the Applicant showed undue haste in taking up the case of M/s. GCPL is without bias and factually incorrect. On the other hand, there was pressure on the Applicant to dispose of GCPL case for justifiable reasons. There is no "collusive arrangement" by the Applicant with the connected officials in this case. In some cases, Assessing Officer himself can grant relief based on grounds of appeal or he may simply justify the order passed by him and offer comments. Steps has been taken already for procuring demand reports from the AO in the appeal presented by M/s. GCPL or just before the appeal was taken up for hearing. ACIT functioning in the office of DGIT, Patna addressed a letter on 25-9-2012 (A/9) to CIT (Central) Patna in the context of submission of remand reports which letter is reproduced in the judgment. As the remand report was not received, the Applicant received a letter, dated 13-3-2013 (A/10) to Assistant DCIT, Central Circle-I, Patna to expedite the case of M/s. GCPL. That letter is reproduced. As the matter was pending long before the Applicant took charge of the report that was made available and the Applicant decided the appeal on 26-3-2013 after giving opportunit to both sides. It is clear that there was no correspondence between Applicant and Shri C.L. Negi on the other side in the context of procuring the remand reports. From the above analysis, it is clear that what is stated in the charge memo is just on basis of imagination.

IT Rules

The impugned charge memorandum against the Applicant, an IRS Officer of 1986 batch was set aside. Her promotion kept in sealed cover should be opened. If the Applicant is found fit for promotion, the benefit of pomotion shall be extended to the Applicant from the date when her junior was promoted with all consequential benefits — The chunk pertains to the defense presented by the applicant in response to charges that she exhibited undue haste in handling an appeal, which was long pending before her tenure as Commissioner of I... — Facts: Applicant, an IRS Officer of 1986 batch and who was holding at present the post of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax filed this OA. In the year 2013, she functioned as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). She was issued with charge memorandum, dated 14-8-2018 alleging that she entered into collusive arrangement with Shri Chaman Lal Negi, then ACIT, Patna Circle - I and the Assessing Officer while disposing of an appeal preferred by M/s. Ganga Carriers Pvt. Ltd. (GCPL). The second Article of charge was that, she prompted Shri Chaman Lal Negi to submit his remand reports in haste, recklessly and without due diligence and application of mind. She did not channelize remand report through the proper authority. Thus she ignored the various observations made by Assessing Officer who completed such assessment. The subject matter of appeal is said to be ₹ 55, 67, 22,264. This OA is filed challenging the charge memorandum. Applicant filed a reply stating that the Articles of charges are incorrect. Hence she challenged the punishment order. Principal contention urged in this OA is that, the entire charge-memo is in relation to the disposal of an appeal by the Applicant in her quasi-juducial capacity and that the same cannot be the subject matter of disciplinary proeeedings. The issues that arise are, whether the proceedings against the Applicant as regards the charges of functions in quasi-juducial capacity is permissible in law and whether the allegations contained in the charge-memo prima facie justify the proposed action. Adjudication of disputes by a quasi-judicial authority is rampant in direct and indirect taxation. The Authority should ensure that neither the assessse nor State are put to a loss on account of long pendency of adjudiction before regular courts. Officer entrusted with quasi-judicial functions partakes the character of an administrator and adjudicator. A modicum of independence is required to be given to such quasi-judicial authority. If the quasi-judicial authority decided a case with ulterior motive, administration has the option of taking action on the authority. This view is prominent consideration in case of Union of India v. A.N. Saxena of Apex Court. Paras. 7 and 8 of that case is reproduced. This is reiterated in Zunjarro Bhikaji Nagarkar's case. The details in that case is stated. The decision of High Court on appeal is reproduced. In the case of S. Rajaguru's case, the Apex Court referred to the above judgment wherein Paras. 42 and 43 are referred for clarity. From the above, there is no prohibition as such against the initiation of disciplinary procedings against an officer in relation to discharge of quasi-judicial functions, but it must be done with care and caution. Disciplinary authority in this case does have a power to initiate disciplinary proceedings in relation to discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the Applicant herein also subject to availability of adequate material even at the stage of issue of charge-sheet to ensure that the power of issuing charge-sheet is not misused. Analyzing the Articles of Charges I, II, III, IV and V which are reproduced in the judgment, they are in relation to disposal of an appeal filed by as an Assessee, M/s. GCPL by the Applicant in her capacity as CIT (Appeals), Patna. The gravamen of charges is contained in Article I and the remaining Articles of charge are supplementing the Article-I of the charges. The assessee granted relief not to an amount of ₹ 55, 67,27,264 but only for ₹ 31,62,57,725. But the reduction amount has not much consequence. Apex Court in number of cases has held that disciplinary proceedings pertain to the matter in which an Officer has discharged his quasi-judicial functions, the mere information is not adequate. Suspicion cannot constitute the basis. The relevant paragraph in Bhikaji Nagarkar's case earlier extracted in the judgment is to be followed scrupulously. In the present case, there is no allegation that the Applicant resorted to any acts of dishonesty or wrongful gain. The edifice of charge-memo is built on the wrong foundation of the so-called hasty disposal of the appeal. Hasty disposal of appeal may lead to an inference that it was done with a clear objective of conferring undue benefit on the assessee. In this case, the Applicant exhibited undue haste in taking up the appeal in question. Hence it becomes necessary to refer to some undisputed documents which are part of records. The appeal is pending since 2011, long before the Applicant joined at Patna. Predecessor to the Applicant received a letter to expedite the appeal from CCIT, Patna (A/5) which is reproduced. On 1-10-2012, CCIT addressed a letter (A/6) instructing the (CIT) Appeals, Patna to bifurcate the appeals based on demand i.e., ₹ 1 crore and others obviously for early disposal of the high value appeals. That letter is reproduced. Letter regarding disposal of appeals to expedite action to be taken is noted to bring down huge amount of revenue blocked therein. The appeal preferred by M/s. GCPL was long pending. Taking the letter for expeditous disposal of long pending cases, the Applicant addressed a letter to GCPL. It appears that DCPL is not co-operating in disposal of appeal. The said letter addressed to GCPL is reproduced. With the efforts of the Applicant, the appeal could be taken up for hearing. Hence the Applicant showed undue haste in taking up the case of M/s. GCPL is without bias and factually incorrect. On the other hand, there was pressure on the Applicant to dispose of GCPL case for justifiable reasons. There is no "collusive arrangement" by the Applicant with the connected officials in this case. In some cases, Assessing Officer himself can grant relief based on grounds of appeal or he may simply justify the order passed by him and offer comments. Steps has been taken already for procuring demand reports from the AO in the appeal presented by M/s. GCPL or just before the appeal was taken up for hearing. ACIT functioning in the office of DGIT, Patna addressed a letter on 25-9-2012 (A/9) to CIT (Central) Patna in the context of submission of remand reports which letter is reproduced in the judgment. As the remand report was not received, the Applicant received a letter, dated 13-3-2013 (A/10) to Assistant DCIT, Central Circle-I, Patna to expedite the case of M/s. GCPL. That letter is reproduced. As the matter was pending long before the Applicant took charge of the report that was made available and the Applicant decided the appeal on 26-3-2013 after giving opportunit to both sides. It is clear that there was no correspondence between Applicant and Shri C.L. Negi on the other side in the context of procuring the remand reports. From the above analysis, it is clear that what is stated in the charge memo is just on basis of imagination.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text