LATE PROMOD KUMAR JAYASWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

PDF

ITA 111/RAN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 October 2025AY 1996-97Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee filed appeals against separate orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 1991-92 to 1996-97, which were related to the fodder scam. The CIT-DR sought an adjournment, citing administrative difficulties and personal involvement in some cases, which the Tribunal rejected. The assessee's representative argued that a CBI affidavit indicated that actual benefits received by suppliers were only 20%, which was not considered by the lower authorities, and requested a restoration of the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Held

The Tribunal rejected the CIT-DR's request for adjournment, emphasizing that appeal provisions are statutory and CIT(A) are quasi-judicial authorities. It accepted the assessee's prayer to restore the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and to allow the production of all relevant evidences, including a copy of the CBI affidavit, if any, filed in the fodder scam cases.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT-DR's request for adjournment on administrative grounds was valid; whether new evidence (CBI affidavit regarding 20% actual benefit to suppliers in fodder scam) should be considered for readjudication by the Assessing Officer.

Sections Cited

Income Tax Act (general appeal provisions)

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

Hearing: 06/10/2025Pronounced: 06/10/2025

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.