Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals for Assessment Years 1991-92 to 1996-97 against orders of the CIT(A). The cases relate to the fodder scam. The CIT-DR sought an adjournment citing administrative burden and potential conflict of interest, which the Tribunal rejected, though accepting the DR's recusal from arguments. The assessee's counsel submitted that a CBI affidavit in fodder scam cases stated actual benefits to suppliers were only 20%, a point not considered by the lower authorities, and requested a readjudication.
Held
The Tribunal accepted the CIT-DR's recusal and decided the appeals after considering the assessee's submissions. It noted that the issues in these appeals, including the new evidence from the CBI affidavit regarding 20% actual benefit, should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard and produce all relevant evidence, including the CBI affidavit.
Key Issues
Whether to grant adjournment to CIT-DR citing administrative reasons and conflict of interest; whether to readjudicate assessment issues considering new evidence (CBI affidavit) related to the fodder scam.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
O R D E R Per Bench : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, dated 22.03.2023 & 23.03.2023 for the assessment years 1991-1992 to 1996-1997. 2. The ld. CIT-DR also sought adjournment in these cases on the following grounds :-
3. The number of cases posted during the week is nearly 250, out of the same, on daily basis, nearly in 72 to 75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected.
It may also be worthwhile to mention here that another reason given by the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative for adjournment is that in some of the appeals, orders have been passed by the office of the impugned CIT- DR personally. Here, it is to be mentioned that in respect of the orders of the ld. CIT(A), which have been challenged by the revenue, it can be said that it would be difficult for the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative to defend such orders, in so far as he would be arguing against his own orders. But in such cases, where the orders have been passed against the assessee and the assessee is in appeal, we find no reason as to why the ld. CIT-DR would not be able to defend his own orders. In any case orders have been issued against the assessee. When this was put to the ld. CIT- DR, it was a submission that should the Tribunal pass an order reversing the order of ld. CIT(A), he could be questioned under administrative provisions. This does not stand to be a reason, in so far as the appeal provisions have been provided by the statute. It is human to err. If there is no order passed by the Assessing Officer, then obviously post of CIT(A) is required and if there is no order of ld. CIT(A), there is no requirement of the Tribunal so on and so forth. Various stages of appeals are provided so that necessary proceedings are available for both the assessee and the revenue to defend their stands. Decisions taken by the appellate authority as a judicial or quasi judicial forums, are not subject to administrative reviews. Appeal provisions are provided by the statute. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that repeatedly the courts have been holding that the ld. CIT(A) are quasi judicial authorities and no administrative pressure can be put on them to decide any issues in any specific manner. We are of the view that such apprehension of the ld. CIT-DR is unfounded. Consequently, the submission of the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative was that he is recusing from the arguments. His plea is accepted. Thus, all the appeals of the assessee are disposed off after considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the facts and circumstances of the case.
It was submitted by the ld.AR that admittedly these cases are relating to fodder scam. It was the submission that the assessee has also been convicted. It was the submission that the quashing petition are pending before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. It was further submitted that a new development has taken place in the impugned fodder scam group of cases, wherein the CBI has filed an affidavit that the actual benefits received by the suppliers was only 20%. It was the submission that this has not been considered by the AO nor ld. CIT(A). It was the prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication after considering the stand taken by the CBI as also the various other decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in fodder scam cases.
We have considered the submissions of ld. AR and perused the orders of the authorities below. The affidavit of the CBI is not before us,