1. Volume XV Part 2 April 25, 2016 3 Business Advisor
Why Government is unfair to Indian
Revenue Service officers who strenuously
work to provide fuel for efficiently
running its administration?
T. N. Pandey
Each year, budget for collection of income tax is
allocated to the apex body of Indian Revenue Service
Officers namely the Central Board of Direct Taxes
(CBDT) which allocates it amongst its regional officers
spread over the length and breadth of the country.
The total target for a year is fixed by increasing the
collections reached in the previous year approximately
by 15 or 20 percentage points on estimated basis
unbacked by any analytical study. The officers and staff
of the income tax department through their devotion and hard work reach
even such artificially fixed target - neigh exceed these by good numbers
many times and no letter of appreciation is sent to apex body‟s Chairman
appreciating the efforts of revenue department to increase tax revenues for
the country to make the Central Government and, through allocations as
per the constitutional provisions, the State Governments to run the
country‟s administration!
2. Tax department criticised for lesser collections
Regretfully, for the just concluded financial year 2015-16 (on 31st March,
2016), the target figure is reported to have fallen short by a few lakhs (final
figures are yet to be reckoned). A report in the Times of India dated 5th April,
2016 shows that against the revised estimate for this period of Rs 7.52 lakh
crore, collection has already reached Rs 7.50 lakh crore, which is 7.61%
The total target for a year is fixed by increasing the
collections reached in the previous year approximately by 15
or 20 percentage points on estimated basis unbacked by any
analytical study.

2. Volume XV Part 2 April 25, 2016 4 Business Advisor
over receipts of 2014-15 and yet anxiety has been shown and information to
media released that the CBDT has not been able to meet the budget target
for the year 2015-16 even when the final figures of collection for this period
are yet to be accounted for! This is prima facie unfair and harsh!
2.1 Not only adverse picture of the IT Department‟s work has come in
media, it is also said that a stern view of short collections has been taken in
the Government and its displeasure has been conveyed to the Chairman,
CBDT in this regard! If this is so, this would be most unfortunate for a work
force of nearly more than 60 thousand persons in gazetted and non-gazetted
positions in the IT department, more so when the revenue department is
headed by a non-service officer who has been considered to be a person
“likely to have little experience or background in the administration at the
national level and little familiarly with tax including international tax issues
that are increasingly taking central stage in emerging global challenges in
taxation” by an expert committee headed by Shri Parthsarthy Shome, an
internationally reputed tax expert! I leave it at this stage for the informed
citizenry of the country to decide how far such treatment at the apex level of
a service collecting crores by way of revenue for the government is justified?
2.2 Injustice to the 1st person in the IT department
Also, the head of the Indian Revenue Service, the Chairman, CBDT, is being
denied, without mentioning any reasons, the position of Secretary to the
Government of India disregarding persistent recommendations by many
expert committees including a parliamentary committee and Shome Panel
(supra) who have vociferously said that the position should be given to the
Chairman, CBDT and also Chairman, CBEC!
3. Field Officers also targeted
Not only the injustice meted at the highest level is being perpetuated, the
field officers are also now onwards being directed to prepare a “15 page
Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for short)” for judging their
judiciousness and consistency in work and to find out whether they are
The head of the Indian Revenue Service, the Chairman,
CBDT, is being denied, without mentioning any reasons, the
position of Secretary to the Government of India disregarding
persistent recommendations by many expert committees.

3. Volume XV Part 2 April 25, 2016 5 Business Advisor
issuing good orders! These APARs are to be filled in by Assessing Officers
(AOs), Asstt. Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners (ACITs & DCITs)
who are empowered authorities for passing assessment orders! These APARs
have recently been notified on 1st April, 2016.
3.1 As per these forms, the Assessing Officer (including ACs & Deputy ACs
when they are doing assessment work) will have to give information about
the number of assessments done during a financial year and specifically
state if an assessee was a firm or corporate entity. The officer filing the form
for his better career prospects will also have to mention details of quarterly
disposal of cases and report top ten cases, by value of addition made, and
handled by them during the same time period. “The purpose of this input is
to assess the efforts, quality and judiciousness of the additions made,” the
fine print on the APAR said.
3.2 A supervisory authority or the AO‟s boss will mark them on their
„consistency in all assessment, quality of assessment made, time
management in disposal of assessments, quality of assessment orders
(natural justice, marshalling of facts, application of proper law, drafting
quality of final order) and overall grading on scrutiny work.
3.3 The proposed changes are said to be brought in to ensure better
productivity and are intended to help in reducing corruption and also
motivate officers to pass correct orders!
4. Appraisal of the proposal
The first issue that needs to be deprecated is as to why there should be a
presumption that the AOs are prone to corruption and therefore need
stringent control through detailed APARs! Have APARs for any other
departments of the Government of India been structured with such a
presumption? May be there could be some black sheep here and there, but
is it fair to target the entire work force from this angle and make them write
a 15-page dossier! The Personnel Department in the Government of India
The first issue that needs to be deprecated is as to why there
should be a presumption that the AOs are prone to
corruption and therefore need stringent control through
detailed APARs!

4. Volume XV Part 2 April 25, 2016 6 Business Advisor
needs to ponder over this!
4.1 Further, the position of an Assessing Officer, be it ITO, AC or DC, is of a
quasi-judicial authority where he has to take decision uninfluenced by any
extraneous aspects on issues where two (or more) views could be possible.
For deciding whether the view taken by the AO is legally tenable or not the
decision is to be taken by the appellate authorities for which the Income-tax
Act, 1961 provides 4-tier appellate machinery. The correctness of an AO‟s
order cannot be deliberated upon or decided administratively as in the cases
of Section Officers, Under Secretaries and other officers in that ladder.
Hence APAR prepared in the pro forma drawn up as stated earlier for AOs
cannot be a proper format for judging the quality of the work of such
officers!
4.2 Further, there cannot be consistency in AO‟s work which has been
stated to be a criterion for this as stated in APAR. Each case has to be
decided on the facts of that case and law applicable for the period for which
the assessment relates. Even in the case of the same taxpayer there cannot
be consistency in assessment in different years. Then what consistency
needs to be measured through APAR is not clear!
5. What needs to be seen in evaluating the work of an AO
Briefly, these could be:
 Disposal, namely, reduction in workload which can be worked out in
the following way:
1. Pendency on 1st April;
2. Add cases added during the year;
3. Less disposal during the year;
4. Balance as on 31.03_.
 Whether there has been adherence to various administrative and legal
requirements, namely:
(i) timely and proper issue of notices;
(ii) adherence to the concept of natural justice;
(iii) whether legal aspects in the conduct of proceedings have been
complied with in the examination of witnesses etc.;

5. Volume XV Part 2 April 25, 2016 7 Business Advisor
(iv) whether the approach of the AOs in regard to various requirements
regarding conduct of proceedings have been just, fair and helpful to
the assessees etc.
(v) compliance in regard to submission of information and statements to
the higher authorities;
(vi) what, according to the AO, have been his best cases -- (i) leading to
increase in revenue; (ii) checking tax evasion, attempts to dupe the
revenue authorities and in the matter of imposition of penalties etc.;
(vii) whether the AO has carried out any investigation(s) leading to
detecting concealments, new assessees, if so, details thereof;
(viii) how the assessments made have stood the tests of the appellate
authorities;
(ix) whether any appreciative or adverse observations have been made
concerning the AO‟s work and conduct by his senior authorities
including appellate authorities regarding the quality of his work;
(x) whether budget target assigned has been met; if not, why; what are
the factors responsible for;
(xi) what the AO considers his good achievements, or adverse factors
affecting the quality and quantum of work;
(xii) any other aspects, not covered under the aforesaid heads, which the
AO wishes to mention about his work.
5.1 In judging the work of an AO, it needs to be kept in view that he is a
quasi-judicial officer who carries out administrative work also. Hence APAR
for him needs to be drawn up in a creative manner – not in the mundane
ways of evaluating the work of persons in secretariats/ non-field
organisations.
(T. N. Pandey is Former Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes.)
In judging the work of an AO, it needs to be kept in view that
he is a quasi-judicial officer who carries out administrative
work also.