2017 (9) TMI 1034 - HC - Income Tax

The Appeal admitted on the following substantial question of law (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon ble I.T.A.T. erred in holding that the assessment was bad in law when it had itself in its order held that there was a typographical error while taking approval in the sense that the year was wrongly mentioned as Asst. Year 2001-2002 instead of 2000-2001 ignoring that the mistake is remedial in view of section 292B of the Income Tax Act and does not render the assessment illegal and null and void ? The Registrar (Judicial) / Registrar, High Court, Original Side, Bombay to ensure that the original record in relation to this Appeal is summoned from the Tribunal and offered for inspection of the parties. This paper-book is treated sufficient for the purpose of admission of this Appeal. However, the Registry must further ensure preparation of complete paperbook in accordance with the Rules. The Registry, in the first instance, must send intimation of admission of this Appeal, enclosing therewith a copy of this order so as to enable the Tribunal to act accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Recusal of a Judge.
2. Allegations of bias and integrity.
3. Scope and limitations of judicial power under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Jurisdictional error and typographical mistakes in assessment orders.
5. Handling of Criminal Writ Petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Recusal of a Judge:
The respondent, appearing in person, objected to one of the judges (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) hearing the case, citing a lack of faith in his impartiality and integrity. The respondent requested the Chief Justice to assign the matter to a different bench. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in *Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India*, emphasizing that a party cannot insist on a judge recusing himself. The court stated that such requests, unless justified, should not be entertained as they undermine the judicial process and the judge's oath of office. The court highlighted that recusal should be a judge's personal decision and not influenced by litigants, as reiterated in the NJAC case and other judgments.

2. Allegations of Bias and Integrity:
The court examined the respondent's allegations and found them to be vague and unsubstantiated. The respondent had no prior interaction with the judge in question, making the claims of bias baseless. The court noted that such tactics are often used by litigants to delay proceedings and avoid adverse orders. The court emphasized that judges must uphold their constitutional duties without fear or favor and should not succumb to pressure from litigants.

3. Scope and Limitations of Judicial Power under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court clarified the limitations of judicial power under Section 260A, which allows the court to admit an appeal only if it raises a substantial question of law. The respondent's request to call for original records was deemed unnecessary at the admission stage. The court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law regarding the typographical error in the assessment year mentioned in the approval.

4. Jurisdictional Error and Typographical Mistakes in Assessment Orders:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in holding the assessment as bad in law due to a typographical error in the assessment year. The court referred to Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, which allows rectification of such errors and does not render the assessment illegal. The court admitted the appeal, indicating that the issue raised a substantial question of law.

5. Handling of Criminal Writ Petition:
The court noted that the Criminal Writ Petition was tagged along with the Income Tax Appeal. However, the respondent was not ready for arguments, and the court decided to accommodate the respondent by posting the matter for a later date. The court directed the Registrar to ensure the original records were summoned and made available for inspection.

Conclusion:
The court refused the respondent's request for recusal, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence and the need to discourage such trends. The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law regarding the typographical error in the assessment year, and the Criminal Writ Petition was adjourned to a later date. The court reiterated the principles of judicial conduct and the limitations of judicial power under the relevant legal provisions.

← Previous Next →