IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings against quasi-judicial officers must be based on objective evidence, and undue delay in initiation can invalidate such actions.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. D. Chaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 22.05.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CAT’) in Original Application No. 040/00062/2018, whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the charge-sheet initiated by the petitioners vide Memorandum dated 27.10.2017 was set aside.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was posted at Kolkata as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short, CIT(A)] in the year 2008. While discharging his duties as CIT(A)-VI, additional charge of CIT(A)-VIII was given to him during the period from 11.06.2008 to 30.07.2008. On 18.07.2008, the respondent decided and allowed an appeal preferred by an assessee against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31.12.2007 for the assessment year 2005-2006 and reversed the finding of the Assessing Officer and allowed sales commission and purchase commission to the assessee which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer.

4. Against the order dated 18.07.2008 passed by the respondent, while holding the additional charge of CIT(A)-VIII, Kolkata, Revenue had preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench Kolkata (in short, ITAT) and the ITAT, Kolkata vide order dated 21.07.2011 allowed the said appeal and reversed the finding of the respondent allowing the sales commission and purchase commission to the assessee to the tune of Rs.120,55,52,350/- and affirmed the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer.

5. It appears that the ITAT had passed the order dated 21.07.2011 without providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee and therefore, the assessee approached the High Court at Calcutta challenging the order passed by the ITAT and High Court at Calcutta vide order dated 31.07.2012 disposed of the said appeal preferred by the assessee whereby it kept in abeyance the order passed by the ITAT and directed the ITAT to take a fresh decision on the appeal filed by the Revenue before it against the order passed by the respondent.

6. The ITAT had passed the order dated 08.11.2016, as per the direction of the High Court at Calcutta while considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of disallowance of the sale commission and purchase commission to the assessee to the tune of Rs.120,55,52,350/- afresh.

7. It appears that the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer while he was deciding the issue afresh as per the direction of the ITAT and the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parteassessment order on 18.12.2017 against the assessee wherein certain demand against the assessee had been raised. It is to be noticed that the petitioners alleged that the respondent deleted an addition of Rs.120.55 crore (approx.) in an appeal disposed of by him in haste and as such, the respondent had failed to maintain absolute integrity.

It is apposite to reproduce the statement of articles of charge served upon the respondent which reads as under:

“STATEMENT OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI VINAY KUMAR, THE THEN COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-VIII, KOLKATA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, GUWAHATI

ARTICLE-I

That the said Vinay Kumar, [D.O.B. 01.07.1958] presently posted as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Gguwahati, held the additional charge of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-VIII, Kolkata for a brief period from 11.06.2008 to 30.07.2008.During this period Shri Vinay Kumar had deleted an additional of ? 120.55 crore (approx.) in an appeal disposed of by him in a matter of three days.

The said addition was made by the Assessing Officer in the case of M/s. Ellenbarrie Exim L