Bias must be established on the facts of each case and cannot be presumed solely based on the assessing officer's role as the authorized officer under Section 132.

ORDER

1. Between 30-9-1998 and 15-10-1998, 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.

2. 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 at 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 insofar as they had challenged the validity of the search. The only issue on which the writ petition was allowed and the assessments made in favour of two of the respondents herein were quashed was that the assessing officer was the same Harinder Kumar who conducted the search.

3. The High Court invoked the principle that a person could not be a judge in his own cause to hold that the assessments could not have been carried out in respect of Respondents 2 and 4. It said:

"Herein the witness who has headed the raiding party for search in the house of Petitioners 2 and 4 acted not only the investigation officer but a quasi-judicial officer determining the liability to pay the income tax. To that extent we are convinced that the assessment order qua Petitioners 2 and 4 and brocading of assessment for liability be quashed."

4. As far as the other respondents are concerned the High Court noted that their apprehension was unfounded since the assessing officer was not the authorised person who carried out the search in respect of their premises. The Revenue Authorities have impugned the decision of the High Court before us. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents when the matter has been argued by the Revenue Authorities yesterday and today.

5. According to the appellants the decision of the High Court should not be sustained on the ground that the High Court had failed to take into account, the entire scheme of the Act and several provisions which permitted 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), 132(9), 133-A, 133-B and Section 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 their 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 the a Act as being constitutionally invalid on the ground that it opposed the basic principles of natural justice.

6. In our view, this appeal must be allowed. The several sections which have been cited by the appellants would show that the assessing officer has, either directly or by virtue of his appointment or authorisation by a superior authority under the Act, been given the power of gathering information for the purposes of assessment. The mode of gathering such information may vary from the mere issuance of a notice under Section 142 to the more intrusive method of entry and search envisaged under Sections 133-A and 133-B and seizure under Section 132. The appellants are also correct in their submission that in the absence of any challenge to any of these provisions, it was not open to the High Court to have disabled the assessing officer from discharging his statutory functions. What the High Court has done is to read limitations into the Act and to qualify the jurisdiction