2021 (3) TMI 22 - AT - Income Tax

CIT(A)-1 Noida jurisdiction over appeals filed under Income Tax Act pertaining to Noida-1 and Noida-2 - allegation in the FIR that Sri S.K. Srivastava claimed to have passed 104 orders as CIT(A)-1 and CIT(A)-2, Noida during December, 2018 but prima facie passed in the Month of June, 2019 - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that Sri S.K. Srivastava then CIT(A)-1, Noida got compulsorily retired with effect from 11.06.2019. It is also not in dispute that on the complaint filed by Ms. Anuja Sarangi, Directorate General of Income Tax (DGIT-Vigilance) FIR was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti Corruption Branch (ACB), Ghaziabad against Sh. S.K.Srivastava then CIT(A)- 1 and 2 Noida u/s 120 B, 420, 468 IPC and Section-7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) for having indulged in Acts of Omission and Commission adversarial to the interest of revenue. As brought on record by the Vigilance Inspection Team of Income Tax Department qua the work and conduct of CIT(A)-Noida it has come on record CIT(A)-I, Noida has decided Income Tax Appeals referred to in preceding para no. 7 pertaining to Ghaziabad Jurisdiction over which he has no jurisdiction purportedly on 31.12.2018 whereas it is proved on record that all these appeals were disposed of in the month of June, 2019 after his compulsory retirement. It is also proved on record that all the impugned orders have been uploaded on ITBA system between 11th June to 13th June, 2019 after his demitting the office by Sri S.K.Srivastava, CIT(A)-1 and2 Noida. It is also proved that he has uploaded the impugned orders to the Central Server using his RSA token only after his retirement. All these facts to go to prove that the impugned orders have been passed by SriS.K.Srivastava, CIT(A)-1 and 2 Noida after his compulsory retirement with effect from 11.06.2019, because the moment he ceases to hold his office he has become functus officio. Hon ble Supreme Court in case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. 1951 (4) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT in the identical situation held that Jurisdictional defect strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties. Also see KANWAR SINGH SAINI 2011 (9) TMI 960 - SUPREME COURT and FATMA BIBI AHMED PATEL 2008 (5) TMI 691 - SUPREME COURT We are of the considered view that the impugned orders suffer from jurisdictional defect which is not curable having been passed by Ld. CIT(A)-1 and 2 Noida after his compulsory retirements with effect from 11.06.2019, when he was functus officio, are not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, nullities. So question framed is answered in affirmative.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional authority of CIT(A)-1 Noida after compulsory retirement.
2. Validity of orders passed by CIT(A)-1 Noida post-retirement.
3. Compliance with CBDT instructions and procedural norms.
4. Impact of vigilance inspection findings on the validity of orders.
5. Legal implications of orders passed without jurisdiction.
6. Applicability of monetary limits under Section 268A to orders without jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Authority of CIT(A)-1 Noida after Compulsory Retirement:
The appeals and cross objections sought to set aside the impugned orders passed by CIT(A)-1 Noida, who was compulsorily retired by the Government of India with effect from 11.06.2019. The key argument was that any discharge of function by an officer who has become functus officio is a nullity in law and without jurisdiction. This was supported by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Rudragouda v. The University of Agricultural Sciences and Ors., which emphasized that no officer can continue to discharge his functions subsequent to his retirement.

2. Validity of Orders Passed by CIT(A)-1 Noida Post-Retirement:
The vigilance inspection revealed that orders purported to have been passed by Sh. S.K. Srivastava in December 2018 were actually passed in June 2019, after his retirement. These orders were uploaded to the ITBA system between 11th June to 13th June 2019, indicating falsification of records. The orders were claimed to be passed in December 2018 but were uploaded using his RSA token only after his retirement, making them invalid.

3. Compliance with CBDT Instructions and Procedural Norms:
The CIT(A)-1 Noida committed a jurisdictional error by deciding appeals beyond fifteen days of the last hearing, in contravention of Instruction no. 20/2003 dated 23.12.2003 issued by the CBDT. The delay in uploading the orders on the ITBA system after his compulsory retirement further violated procedural norms.

4. Impact of Vigilance Inspection Findings on the Validity of Orders:
The vigilance inspection conducted by the DGIT (Vigilance) revealed several illegalities and irregularities, including the passing of orders outside his jurisdiction and falsification of records. These findings supported the argument that the orders passed by CIT(A)-1 Noida were illegal and non-est.

5. Legal Implications of Orders Passed Without Jurisdiction:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. Workman and Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi held that an order/decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity. Jurisdictional defect strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties. Therefore, the orders passed by CIT(A)-1 Noida after his retirement were nullities.

6. Applicability of Monetary Limits under Section 268A to Orders Without Jurisdiction:
The monetary limits fixed pursuant to Section 268A apply only to orders passed by authorities with jurisdiction. Since the orders in question were passed without jurisdiction, the monetary limits under Section 268A were not applicable.

Conclusion:
The impugned orders passed by CIT(A)-1 Noida were set aside due to jurisdictional defects, having been passed after his compulsory retirement when he was functus officio. The appeals were remanded to the respective jurisdictional CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee/revenue. The judgment emphasized the importance of jurisdictional authority and procedural compliance in the administration of the Income Tax Act.

← Previous Next →