2016 (6) TMI 1212 - AT - Income Tax

Interim orders passed without giving adequate opportunity of being heard - Transfer of case u/s 127 - Held that - A perusal of the orders of the Bench on various dates demonstrates that the Revenue is adopting delay tactics and is procrastinating the issue of production of records. This is not appreciated. It also gives us a feeling that there is no such order passed under section 127 of the Act giving jurisdiction to the concerned Assessing Officer. No merit in the argument of the learned Departmental representative that the assessee could approach the Revenue under the Right to Information Act and hence the required orders on record need not be produced. Any document or record can be requisitioned by the Bench, if it is of the opinion that if the same is required for the disposal of the appeal. The assessee also submits that his application under the Right to Information Act was rejected by the Revenue. Thus, in our view the Bench, only on being convinced of the necessity of examining these records called for the said records and jurisdictional orders. The argument that interim orders were passed without the Bench being convinced of the reasons and necessity of summoning the record, is to say the least, unwarranted. These orders on different dates by different Benches cannot be said to have been passed without reason or without application of mind. The argument of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax- Departmental representative are devoid of merit. In view of the above discussions, we direct the Revenue to comply with the interim orders of this Bench. Adjournment is once again granted at the request of the earned Departmental representative as last opportunity.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the additional ground raised by the assessee.
2. Requirement for the Revenue to produce records and jurisdictional orders.
3. Compliance with interim orders issued by the Bench.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of the Additional Ground Raised by the Assessee:
The primary contention revolves around whether the assessee's additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer is admissible. The Departmental representative argued that such a ground cannot be admitted as it questions an order under section 127 of the Act, which is not challengeable before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The representative insisted that the admissibility of this ground should be decided first before any records are produced. Conversely, the assessee's counsel argued that jurisdictional issues can be raised at any appellate stage and that the ground is admissible. The Bench, after considering these arguments, decided that the admissibility of the additional ground can only be determined after examining the relevant records.

2. Requirement for the Revenue to Produce Records and Jurisdictional Orders:
The Departmental representative contended that the interim orders passed by the Bench, directing the Revenue to produce records and jurisdictional orders, were issued without giving him an adequate opportunity to be heard. He argued that the assessee should explain the necessity for inspecting these records and that the Bench should be convinced of this necessity before directing the Revenue to produce them. Additionally, he suggested that the assessee could obtain the required documents under the Right to Information Act. The Bench, however, noted that the interim orders were passed after hearing both parties and that the records are essential for determining the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The Bench found no merit in the argument that the records need not be produced because they could be obtained under the Right to Information Act, especially since the assessee's application under the Act was rejected by the Revenue.

3. Compliance with Interim Orders Issued by the Bench:
The Bench observed that the Revenue had been adopting delay tactics and procrastinating the production of records. Various orders were issued on different dates directing the Revenue to produce the necessary records, but compliance was not achieved. The Bench expressed dissatisfaction with the Revenue's approach and indicated that it gave the impression that no such order under section 127 was passed. The Bench reiterated that it has the authority to requisition any document or record necessary for the disposal of the appeal and that the interim orders were issued after due consideration. The Bench directed the Revenue to comply with the interim orders and produce the records by the next hearing date, warning that non-compliance would lead to adverse inference.

Conclusion:
The Bench concluded by granting an adjournment as a final opportunity for the Revenue to comply with the interim orders. The case was adjourned to August 2, 2016, with a clear warning that no further adjournments would be granted and that non-compliance would result in adverse consequences for the Revenue. The Bench emphasized the importance of adhering to its orders and ensuring that the necessary records are produced for a fair resolution of the appeal.