9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examined and never intended that the orders are to be passed in one particular manner only. It was pointed out that no such directions were given by the CBDT to the respondent No.4 directing him to pass an order under Section 263 of the Act, necessarily reopening the assessments. He was called upon to examine the matter. The Commissioner passed detailed order under Section 263 of the Act, which depicts his independent mind, and various observations made in this order are not at the dictates of any authority. It was for this reason that submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner was not that any such specific direction was given. Attempt was to demonstrate that the CBDT had almost dictated the line of action to the respondent No.4 making him virtually impossible to exercise independent judgment and unfettered discretion in discharge of his statutory function under Section 263 of the Act. It is not necessary for us to give any authoritative pronouncement on this aspect in the facts of this case. Reason is simple and obvious. ASG, as noted above, as conceded that an opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for making its submissions on the merits of the case by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on various points canvassed before us or which it intends to raise at the time of fresh hearing. - Mr. A.K. SIKRI, J. Mr. VALMIKI J. MEHTA JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Akansha Aggarwal and Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Addl. Solicitor General with Ms. Rashmi Chopra and Mr. Kunal Bahri, Advocates A.K. SIKRI 1. All these writ petitions are preferred by the same petitioner, namely, NIIT Ltd. In WP (C) No. 4722/2008, challenge is laid to the order dated 19.6.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), who is the respondent No.4 herein, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ). Vide this order, he has formed the opinion that the assessment order dated 1.6.2006 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3)/153A of the Act in respect of assessment year 1999-2000 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because of the reason that certain issues, highlighted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces issued under Section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05 and assessments were completed under Section 153A in June 2006. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed the assessment order on 1.6.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal against the additions made therein and the CIT (Appeals) was pleased to allow the same vide order dated 27.9.2006. The respondents have filed appeal to the Tribunal against the relief allowed by CIT(A), which is pending disposal before the Tribunal. 6. While this appeal before the Tribunal against the assessment order dated 1.6.2006 is pending, a notice dated 23.7.2007 under Section 263 of the Act was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-III) (respondent No.3 herein), then exercising jurisdiction over the petitioner. The petitioner filed its detailed response thereto vide communication dated 9.10.2007. Subsequently, jurisdiction was transferred to Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II)/respondent No.4. Upon assuming the jurisdiction, the respondent No.4 issued another notice dated 15.10.2007. In response to this notice issued by the respondent No.4, the petitioner filed d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities on account of undue pressure and influence exerted by Shri A.L. Mehta. The impugned order, therefore, is mala fide and is bad in law. (b) The original assessment under Section 153A was completed and assessment order dated 1.6.2006 was passed by the AO under monitoring of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Furthermore, at that time, the regular reports were also sent to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) through proper channel from time to time on the progress of the assessments. The plea, thus, is that when the assessment proceedings are monitored by the Commissioner, who is having jurisdiction over the AO, such an assessment order passed by the AO cannot be subjected to revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. 9. We may point out at this stage itself that insofar as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Addl. Solicitor General was fair in conceding that the respondent No.4/Commissioner will have no objection in affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make its submissions on merits as well and passing the order afresh. On the basis of this concession of the learned Additional Solicitor General, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AO and other Income Tax authorities which are not adverse to the petitioner as the said informant desires. He castigates and casts serious unfounded aspersions on the AOs and the Income Tax authorities who have not passed orders to his liking against the petitioner. For example, Mr. A.L. Mehta s letter dated 3.7.2007 addressed to CBDT has alleged that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, who took the view that no remedial action was called for in the case of the petitioner, was biased. (ii) Again, he has levelled serious, baseless and indiscriminate allegations against the Income Tax authorities whose only sin was that they did not pass adverse orders against the petitioner which would have benefited the informant, namely, Mr. A.L. Mehta, in getting his reward. (iii) The CBDT not only took cognizance of the informant, but had even instructed the authorities to look into his complaints, which was totally impermissible. (iv) The tenor of various letters would show that the CBDT had almost dictated the line of action to the respondent No.4 making him virtually impossible to exercise independent judgment and unfettered discretion in discharge of his statutory function ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Apex Court had held that even a higher authority cannot interfere with the independence of the adjudicating authority, which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process. (v) Purtabpur Company Ltd. v. Cane Commnr. of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1896, wherein the order passed by the Cane Commissioner was set aside as that order was passed on the directions of the Chief Minister. (vi) State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, AIR 1989 SC 997, wherein the Supreme Court again reiterated the principle that the authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion and such an act would be ultra vires. 15. Following judgments highlighting the same principle were also cited:- (i) Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT, 108 ITR 407 (ii) Jawahar Lal v. Competent Authority, Range-II, New Delhi, 137 ITR 605 (iii) Sheo Narain Jaiswal v. ITO 176 ITR 352 (iv) Yashwant Talkies v. CIT 157 ITR 103 (v) CIT v. T.R. Rajakumari 96 ITR 78 (vi) Rajputana Mining Agencies v. ITO, 118 ITR 585 (vii) IL FS Investment Managers Limited 298 ITR 32 16. Countering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Also in the other writ petitions for different assessment years, no orders under Section 263 of the Act have been passed and the proceedings have been stated by this Court in WP (C) No. 172/2009 vide order dated 15.1.2009. The petitioner cannot, therefore, allege violation of the principles of natural justice in the said cases and has shirked from participation in the said proceedings on the ground of apprehension of similar orders which may be passed as in the present petition. The petitioner cannot have a grievance of violation of the principles of natural justice in the said proceedings but is deliberately not allowing the proceedings to continue. He added that a probable of ₹ 100 crore is involved in the present batch of petitions and the petitioner is trying to delay the adjudication/recovery of the same by adopting dilatory tactics on one pretext or the other. The intention of the petitioner is manifest in its conduct. 19. His further submission was that none of the letters written by the CBDT or Mr. Mehta indicated that there was any dictate therein for the Commissioner to pass orders in a particular manner. He also submitted that the remedy of statutory appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended that the orders are to be passed in one particular manner only. It was pointed out that no such directions were given by the CBDT to the respondent No.4 directing him to pass an order under Section 263 of the Act, necessarily reopening the assessments. He was called upon to examine the matter. The Commissioner passed detailed order under Section 263 of the Act, which depicts his independent mind, and various observations made in this order are not at the dictates of any authority. It was for this reason that submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner was not that any such specific direction was given. Attempt was to demonstrate that the CBDT had almost dictated the line of action to the respondent No.4 making him virtually impossible to exercise independent judgment and unfettered discretion in discharge of his statutory function under Section 263 of the Act. It is not necessary for us to give any authoritative pronouncement on this aspect in the facts of this case. Reason is simple and obvious. 21. The learned ASG, as noted above, as conceded that an opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for making its submissions on the merits of the case by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in CIT v. Hastings Properties, 253 ITR 124 (Cal.) and the Madras High Court in Festo Elgi (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 246 ITR 705 (Mad.) were pressed into service in support of this submission. Since the matter has to be considered afresh by the Commissioner, even this contention can be raised by the petitioner before the said Commissioner and the Commissioner, while passing the order, shall specifically deal with this contention. 23. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that WP (C) No. 4722/2008 is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.6.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II)/respondent No.4 is hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent No.4 to appropriately deal with the matter and pass fresh order after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on various points canvassed before us or which it intends to raise at the time of fresh hearing. We also make it clear that we have not authoritatively pronounced on the contentions raised by the petitioner, either way, and the Commissioner shall deal with such contentions objectively without being influenced by any observations in this judgment. 24. WP (C) Nos. 172/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
