1. Between September 30, 1998, and October 15, 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 of 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 in so far 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 Nos. 2 and 4. It said (p. 748) :
"Herein the witness who had headed the raiding party for search in the house of petitioners Nos. 2 and 4 acted not only as the Investigating 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 Nos. 2 and 4 and proceedings of assessment are liable to 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), (9A), 133A, 133B and 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 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 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 133A and 133B 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 of the Assessing Officer and the powers of the authorities empowered to appoint the Assessing Officer as an authorised officer under Section 132 without any foundation for such conclusion being laid in any manner whatsoever by the writ petitioners.
7. Apart from the absence of any challenge to the provisions of the Act relating to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to carry out the search under Section 132, subject to his being appointed as an authorised officer thereunder, we are of the view that there is no question of imputing or presuming a bias where action is followed under the section. The Assessing Officer is required to assess the income on the basis of facts as found. Such finding may be through any of the provisions referred to above. The only limitation on his drawing a conclusion from the facts as found is the requirement of allowing the assessee an opportunity of explaining the material. Even though it could be said that in a sense since the Assessing Officer was acting on behalf of the Revenue, in discharging the functions as an Assessing Officer, he was a party to the dispute, nevertheless there is no presumption of bias in such a situation. As said in H.C. Narayanappa v. State of Mysore, :
"It is also true that the Government on whom the duty to decide the dispute rests, is substantially a party to the dispute but if the Government or the authority to whom the power is delegated acts judicially in approving or modifying the scheme, the approval or modification is not open to challenge on a presumption of bias. The Minister or the officer of the Government who is invested with the power to hear objections to the scheme is acting in his official capacity and unless there is reliable evidence to show that he is biased, his decision will not be liable to be called in question, merely because he is a limb of the Government."
8. There is nothing inherently unconstitutional in permitting the Assessing Officer to gather the information and to assess the value of the information himself. The issue as to the constitutional validity of a provision which permitted an examining board not only to hold an inquiry but also to take action against doctors was raised before the Supreme Court of United States in Harold Withrow v. Duane Larkin (43 L. Ed. 2d 712). In negating the challenge the court said;
"The contention that the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions necessarily creates an unconstitutional risk of bias in administrative adjudication has a much more difficult burden of persuasion to carry. It must over come a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators; and it must convince that, under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness, conferring investigative and adjudicative powers on the same individual poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented."
9. It is true that there may be cases where the outcome of the assessment may be influenced by the fact that the raiding Assessing Officer had himself in the course of the raid been witness to any incriminating material against the assessee. The Assessing Officer's decision on the basis of such material is not the final word in the matter. The assessment order is appealable under the provisions of the statute itself and ultimately by way of judicial review.
10. Finally, the courts cannot read in limitations to the jurisdiction conferred by the statutes, in the absence of a challenge to the provision itself when the language of the Act clearly allows for an ostensible violation of the principles of natural justice including the principle that a person cannot be a judge in his own cause. In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel , in recognition of this principle this court held (page 1462 of AIR 1985 SC):
"Not only, therefore, can the principles of natural justice be modified but in exceptional cases they can even be excluded. There are well-defined exceptions to the nemo judex in causa sua rule as also to the audi alteram partem rule. The nemo judex in causa sua rule is subject to the doctrine of necessity and yields to it as pointed out by this court in J. Mohapatra and Co. v. State of Orissa ."
11. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the fact that the assessments on the basis of material recovered under Section 132 had to be completed within a period of limitation prescribed under Section 158BE(1)(b). The last date for completion of the assessments in the present case was October 31, 2000. The prayer of the respondents for transfer of the case from the Assessing Officer on October 11, 2000, to a new Assessing Officer in the circumstances was unacceptable and the assessment by the said Harinder Kumar was unavoidable given the limited period left for completing the assessment proceedings. The High Court has observed that this plea had not been raised by the appellant. Perhaps the appellants are correct in submitting that the fact speaks for itself. However, it is not necessary for us to give any final view in the matter having held that the sections in the Act impose no limitation on the Assessing Officer on the authorised officer being the same person and that it could not be said that action taken pursuant to such statutory empowerment was coloured, only by reason thereof, by any bias.
12. Ultimately, the question of bias will have to be decided on the facts of each case. If the assessee is able to establish that the Assessing Officer was in fact biased in the sense that he was involved or interested in his personal capacity in the outcome of the assessment or the procedure for assessment, no doubt, it would be a good ground for setting aside the assessment order. But to hold, as the High Court has that bias is established only because the authorised officer under Section 132 and the Assessing Officer are the same person is, in our view, an incorrect approach.
13. In the circumstances of the case, we set aside the judgment under appeal. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.