9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing been issued belatedly, was only a counterblast to the respondent s challenge to the earlier charge memo wherein the petitioners had leveled similar allegations qua cases decided by him while he was posted as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax during the period between 1996 to 1998 HELD THAT:- We are of the view that even if we were to accept the petitioners plea that the decision in S. Rajguru [ 2014 (8) TMI 1243 - DELHI HIGH COURT] was not applicable to the facts of the present case, or that the said decision as urged by the petitioners was liable to be ignored, the fact remains that the petitioners have not been able to explain the inordinate delay of over ten years in issuing the charge memo. The appeals which the CIT(A)/respondent is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nctioning as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), he has wrongly decided five appeals by ignoring material facts of those cases. 2. At the outset, we may note the brief factual matrix as emerging from the record. 3. The respondent joined the Department of Income Tax as an Income Tax Officer Group A on 31.12.1981 and was with passage of time promoted first as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on 28.01.1990, and thereafter as Commissioner of Income Tax on 23.06.2001. While being posted as Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) at Raipur, during the course of discharge of his quasi-judicial duties, he decided various appeals. On 11.06.2014, the petitioners issued a charge memo to the respondent on the ground that five of the appeals decided by hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated 11.06.2014, which besides having been issued belatedly, was only a counterblast to the respondent s challenge to the earlier charge memo dated 13.09.2002, wherein the petitioners had leveled similar allegations qua cases decided by him while he was posted as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax during the period between 1996 to 1998. He, further, submits that the petitioners plea that the decision in S.Rajguru (supra) was incorrect or ought to have been ignored by the learned Tribunal overlooks the fact that a challenge to the said decision before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts are not prepared to abide by their own guidelines and rather trying to rationalise the delay. Nowhere do we find any explanation forthcoming except for general statement. Therefore, the issue of delay sticks against the respondents. * * * 24. In the instant case, we find that explanation given by the applicant in the tabular form reveals that out of his five decisions, three have been upheld by the higher judicial authority; in one the department has not chosen to appeal against; and the remaining one matter is still sub judice before the Hon ble High Court. There is some substance in the assertion of the applicant that his view in the decision was a plausible view based upon circular issued by the CBDT as also the decisions of Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (supra). In such cases where the quasi-judicial officers have acted mala fidedly, the entire situation has been summed up in S. Rajguru s case (supra) which is more akin to decision in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India Ors. (supra). We also agree with the assertion of the applicant that on face of it most of the decisions are explained either by way of approval of the superior courts or inability of the Government to file appeals. We are firmly of the opinion that independence of a judicial form whether be it a quasi-judicial body is of absolute importance. If a quasi-judiciary starts deciding all cases in favour of the Government then the very purpose of creating such fora would stand defeated. The proper course is to file ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of over ten years if computed from 13.05.2003. A Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decides appeals on a regular basis in his quasi-judicial capacity and cannot be expected to have access to records of all decided cases after so many years. It is, therefore, evident that on account of this inordinate delay in issuance of the charge sheet, grave prejudice was likely to be caused to the respondent. 10. Even before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners except for baldly stating that the delay was occasioned due to the long drawn procedure required to be followed before issuing the charge memo to a Group A officer like the respondent, has not been able to furnish any reason much less to say any justifiable reason for this inordinate d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
