9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998, and October 15, 1998, the premises of the respondents was searched under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The search party was headed by one Harinder Kumar who had been appointed as the authorised officer for the purposes of section 132 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Almost two years after the search was carried out when the assessments of the respondents were sought to be completed, the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana impugning not only the search which had been carried out but also assailing the authority of the Assessing Officer to carry out the assessments. The High Court did not accept the submissions of the respondents in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the Assessing Officer to discharge the functions of a fact-finding authority. Particular reference has been made to sections 120, 124, 131(1), 132(8), (9A), 133A, 133B and 142. It is pointed out that the High Court having expressly found that there were no mala fides attributed, should not have interfered with what was a question of jurisdiction and discharge of statutory duties. The decision of the High Court, according to the appellants, apart from running contrary to the scheme of the Act, would amount to a limitation on the powers conferred statutorily on the Assessing Officer. The appellants contend that there is no structural bias in the sections of the Act and that in any event the appellants have not impugned any provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there is no question of imputing or presuming a bias where action is followed under the section. The Assessing Officer is required to assess the income on the basis of facts as found. Such finding may be through any of the provisions referred to above. The only limitation on his drawing a conclusion from the facts as found is the requirement of allowing the assessee an opportunity of explaining the material. Even though it could be said that in a sense since the Assessing Officer was acting on behalf of the Revenue, in discharging the functions as an Assessing Officer, he was a party to the dispute, nevertheless there is no presumption of bias in such a situation. As said in H.C. Narayanappa v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 1073; [1960] 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isal of psychological tendencies and human weakness, conferring investigative and adjudicative powers on the same individual poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented. It is true that there may be cases where the outcome of the assessment may be influenced by the fact that the raiding Assessing Officer had himself in the course of the raid been witness to any incriminating material against the assessee. The Assessing Officer's decision on the basis of such material is not the final word in the matter. The assessment order is appealable under the provisions of the statute itself and ultimately by way of judicial review. Finall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The High Court has observed that this plea had not been raised by the appellant. Perhaps the appellants are correct in submitting that the fact speaks for itself. However, it is not necessary for us to give any final view in the matter having held that the sections in the Act impose no limitation on the Assessing Officer on the authorised officer being the same person and that it could not be said that action taken pursuant to such statutory empowerment was coloured, only by reason thereof, by any bias. Ultimately, the question of bias will have to be decided on the facts of each case. If the assessee is able to establish that the Assessing Officer was in fact biased in the sense that he was involved or interested in his personal capacit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
