9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1210 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Deduction u/s 80-IB(10) - HELD THAT - CIT, in exercise of powers u/s 263 of the Act, had concededly, even according to the petitioner, interceded, via order dated 18.05.2012, and held that, the assessment order passed by the petitioner was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The petitioner s asserts that the case set up by him, which was not examined by the Tribunal, was simply this the subject assessment order was passed in good faith, in exercise of the adjudicatory powers conferred upon him by the Act and that it was passed neither on account of corrupt motive or recklessly. According to the petitioner, since he had passed the assessment order in his role, as a quasi-judicial authority, he could not have been served with the chargesheet for performing such functions unless his action could be slotted into exceptions adverted hereinabove. In our opinion, the manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the Tribunal, is less than satisfactory. The action of the respondent which was impugned by the petitioner before Tribunal has serious ramifications for petitioner, and thus, could not have dealt with the matter so nonchalantly. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.
Issues:
1. Challenge to order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 2. Allegations regarding deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2009-2010. 3. Examination of the quasi-judicial capacity of the petitioner in passing the assessment order. 4. Unsatisfactory handling of the matter by the Tribunal. 5. Service of charge memo after a decade to potentially affect promotion. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding a charge-memo dated 30.07.2020 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services Rules. The charge pertained to a deduction of ?98,50,000 under Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2009-2010, concerning Alliance Nirmaan Limited. Previous disallowances for AY 2007-2009 were mentioned, with the CIT intervening for AY 2009-2010, deeming the assessment order erroneous. 2. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed in good faith and not on corrupt grounds. The Tribunal's order was criticized for lacking discussion on crucial aspects, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. The Tribunal was directed to rehear the matter, ensuring a speaking order and allowing the petitioner to present his case adequately. 3. Notably, the charge memo was served almost a decade after the assessment order, raising suspicions of affecting the petitioner's promotion. The petitioner aimed to expedite the proceedings for a DPC meeting in December 2021, appearing before the Tribunal's Registrar on 21.10.2021. The Tribunal was instructed to prioritize the case, aiming for a conclusion by December 2021. 4. The judgment highlighted the importance of a fair and thorough examination of disciplinary proceedings, especially in cases involving quasi-judicial functions. The Tribunal's casual approach was criticized, emphasizing the need for a detailed and satisfactory handling of matters with significant implications for the parties involved. 5. The judgment underscored the need for adherence to legal procedures and the rights of the petitioner, ensuring a fair opportunity to present their case. The directive for a fresh hearing and a speaking order aimed at upholding principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative and legal proceedings.
|
