Date:01/12/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/01/stories/2006120113151000.htm

Tamil Nadu

Tribunal dismisses former tax official's plea

Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: The Central Administrative Tribunal has declined to interfere with the departmental proceedings against a former Commissioner on the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, who allegedly conferred "undue favour to assessees," including former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.

Dismissing the original application preferred by T. Goraknathan against a charge memo issued a few days ahead of his retirement, the Madras Bench of the CAT said: "The Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Director-General of Income Tax have taken great caution and [made] close scrutiny before initiating departmental proceedings against Mr. Goraknathan."

A perusal of the detailed charge sheet indicated the investigation that was done before the charge was framed against him.

The Articles of Charges said the official had passed orders without proper examination of issues in matters concerning Ms. Jayalalithaa, her friend N. Sasikalaa and two of their business entities. This resulted in undue benefit to the assessees.

He admitted fresh evidence at the appellate stage in violation of the prescribed procedure. The third charge related to his passing orders summarily against two other companies.

While counsel for the applicant said there was no prima facie material to establish misconduct and there was inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings, the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel did not file any counter despite several adjournments and admitted that he had no answer to the legal points raised.

Dismissing the application, the Bench, comprising Justice P. Shanmugam and Administrative Member R. Ganesan said, "We find sufficient and prima facie material in support of the imputation of misconduct."

Rejecting the contention of two-year delay, it said that considering that the assessment orders related to more than a 10-year period and several issues were to be considered during the investigation and consequent initiation of proceedings, the delay, if any, could not be considered unreasonable.

The Bench rapped the Union Finance Ministry for having failed to instruct its counsel to make necessary submissions on the legal points raised by the applicant.

The CAT granted nearly two months, but it is "unfortunate that the Department/respondents were not in a position to instruct their counsel to assist the Tribunal."