*Alapan Bandhopadhyay Vs Union of India & another*
*Date- 7th March 2022*
*Forum- Delhi High Court*

*Sub- Whether chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) has unbridled power to transfer a matter from one bench of tribunal to another bench and connected issues?*

The Delhi High court Chief Justice bench in this high profile matter was hearing a petition when a show cause was issued to the petitioner herein by *Ministry of Home Affairs for not attending a meeting chaired by PM Narendra Modiji on 28-05-21 **for assessing loss and damage caused by Yass Cyclone in Calcutta. The show cause was followed by a charge sheet which was challenged before the Calcutta Bench of CAT. In the meantime, the matter was transferred by the Chairman CAT to New Delhi and said transfer was challenged before Supreme Court and the apex court declined to interfere though leave was granted to challenge before Delhi high court. The Delhi High court thus having been seized of the matter held that the power of a Chairman of the Tribunal under Section 25 of the 1985 Act is purely an administrative power to transfer cases from one Bench to another, which can be exercised on an application by any party or even on his own motion in a given case and where the facts and circumstances so warrant. The Court also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in *Tata cellular Vs Union of India(1994) 6 SCC 651(SC) **which had held that the scope of judicial review of an administrative decision is extremely limited and can only be exercised to scrutinize the decision making process. The argument of Senior Counsel Tushar Mehta was accepted that the principal seat of power in this case in New Delhi, records were in New Delhi and other reasons and thus the transfer was proper. Probably the matter will now be before Supreme Court soon.

A question arises whether there can be similar situation in Income-tax also. In this regard, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of MSPL Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income tax 1, Mumbai [2021] 127 taxmann.com 379 (Bombay) in a similar situation quashed the order passed by President ITAT for transfer of a matter from one bench to another bench outside the state on the pretext that the jurisdiction of ITAT will be at the place where the AO Is located. However, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) Lucknow Vs. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 104 (Allahabad), held that the President of ITAT has power to transfer a matter from one bench to another even outside the state. Thus in so far as Income-tax is concerned, the matter is disputed. Moreover, in the light of faceless assessment, this issue will be all the more relevant.

Ramesh Patodia
08-03-2022