The full administrative control of the respective Chief Auditors, and the Range I.A.Cs should not exercise control over them. - Income Tax - 186/CBDT

INSTRUCTION NO 186/CBDT, Dated: July 4, 1970 At present there is some uncertainty about who is to exercise administrative control over the Internal Audit Parties. On a consideration of the following factors, the Board have decided that the I.A.Ps should be placed under the full administrative control of the respective Chief Auditors, and the Range I.A.Cs should not exercise control over them: (1) As stated in para 3(iv) of the Board's letter of even number dated 26-5-70, supervision of IAPs by the IACs was found neither adequate not effective. (2) If the IAPs are made a part of the Chief Auditor's set up, they would have greater freedom in reporting mistakes. (3) It is the Chief Auditor who is responsible for deciding the weekly programmes of the IAPs and it is he who has to scrutinise the objections raised by the Revenue Audit and eliminate the frivolous ones. 2. The Board have also been considering a suggestion that the headquarters of all the IAPs functioning under a Chief Auditor should be at the latter's place of posting. The advantages of such an arrangement would be: (i) That the Chief Auditor would be able to exercise effective control over the IAPs and render them technical advice promptly. (ii) With all the IAPs functioning from his head-quarters, the Chief Auditor would be in a position to constitute and reconstitute the parties according to the exigencies of work in various offices. (iii) The charges in Mofussils would be covered by the IAPs in rotation so that no particular party or parties would complain of discrimination. The arrangement is being tried in some Commissioners' charges. The Board feel that it should work well and lead to efficiency. They desire that the other Commissioners of Income-tax may follow this arrangement with such local variations as they consider necessary.