2024 (3) TMI 1211 - HC - Income Tax

Writ petition dismissed as tribunal correctly quashed charge memo issued with inordinate ten-year delay against CIT(A)

Union of India & Anr. Versus Pavan Ved

Delhi HC dismissed writ petition challenging tribunal's decision to quash charge memo issued to CIT(A). The charge memo alleged mala fide decisions in ... Charge memo issued to CIT(A) - disciplinary actions on allegations of mala fide against an officer exercising quasi-judicial powers - delay in issue charge memo - appeals decided in exercise of quasi-judicial powers while he was serving as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at Raipur, between 13.05.2003 and June 2007, had been were wrongly decided by ignoring material facts - Quasi-judicial powers of CIT(Appeals) -Tribunal has quashed the charge memo issued to the CIT(A)/respondent - as argued Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo which besides having 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 purported to have wrongly decided pertained to the period between 13.05.2003 to June 2007, when he was functioning as the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) at Raipur and therefore, there is undoubtedly a delay of over ten years if computed from 13.05.2003. A CIT(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. Even before us, 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 delay. WP dismissed. Issues:The issues involved in this case are the validity of the charge memo issued to the respondent, the impact of delay in issuing the charge memo, and the application of the decision in S. Rajguru's case regarding disciplinary actions against officers exercising quasi-judicial powers.Validity of Charge Memo:The petitioners challenged the order quashing the charge memo issued to the respondent, alleging that the respondent wrongly decided appeals while serving as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The respondent, in turn, argued that the charge memo was belated and a counterblast to an earlier charge memo. The High Court noted the factual background of the respondent's career progression within the Department of Income Tax and the circumstances leading to the issuance of the charge memo.Impact of Delay:The High Court emphasized the inordinate delay of over ten years in issuing the charge memo to the respondent for decisions made between 2003 and 2007. The Court found that the delay was not adequately explained by the petitioners, causing potential prejudice to the respondent. Despite the petitioners' argument regarding the procedural requirements for issuing a charge memo to a Group 'A' officer, no justifiable reason for the delay was provided.Application of S. Rajguru's Case:The learned Tribunal relied on the decision in S. Rajguru's case to opine that unless mala fide is alleged against an officer exercising quasi-judicial powers, no action can be taken based on decisions made by the officer. The High Court, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, concluded that the delay in issuing the charge memo was not satisfactorily explained, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.This summary outlines the key aspects of the judgment, including the challenges to the charge memo, the significance of the delay in issuing the memo, and the application of legal principles from S. Rajguru's case in the decision-making process.