2016 (10) TMI 1081 - HC - Income Tax

Discriminatory treatment - No affidavit from the Chairperson of the C.B.D.T. - respondent no.1. - Held that - The enigmatic omission to follow the order of the Supreme Court on ostensible reason of some disparity on account of some proceedings in the High Court or Tribunal, would surely not be permitted to be perpetuated. Hence, we are of the prima facie view that when the counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has sought time to overcome the technical objection of no affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.1, despite the time being granted, we fail to understand as to why there was no affidavit from the Chairperson of the C.B.D.T. - respondent no.1. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that the affidavit, which is filed at page 55 dated 20.09.2016, is along with due authority from the Chairperson of C.B.D.T. and hence though the same is in order, in case if it is required to be treated as no affidavit so far as respondent no.1 is concerned, let there be one more date and adjournment so that the technical objection could be overcome. When the Court is inclined to accept the request for adjournment so as to enable the counsel for the respondents to complete the formality of pleadings, it would be in the fitness of thing that the statement ought to have been continued. However, when the counsel has pleaded her inability to continue with the statement, this Court is of the view that the adjournment shall not in any manner create any prejudice to the applicant and similarly situated persons.

Summary

Issues:
1. Technical objection of no affidavit filed by respondent no.1
2. Discriminatory treatment towards the applicant and similarly situated persons despite a Supreme Court order
3. Request for adjournment to overcome technical objection
4. Continuation of status quo regarding promotions from Income Tax Officers to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the technical objection raised due to the absence of an affidavit filed by respondent no.1. The respondent's counsel sought time to rectify this deficiency by submitting an affidavit from the concerned respondent. Despite the time granted, the Court expressed confusion over the delay in filing the affidavit by the Chairperson of C.B.D.T. - respondent no.1, as per the Supreme Court's order in favor of the applicant and similarly situated persons.

2. The Court highlighted the discriminatory treatment faced by the applicant and others in the State of Gujarat, despite a clear Supreme Court order in their favor. The failure to adhere to the Supreme Court's directive due to alleged disparities in High Court or Tribunal proceedings was deemed unacceptable. The Court expressed a prima facie view that the delay in filing the affidavit was unjustified and emphasized the need to prevent such discriminatory actions from persisting.

3. Following discussions on the affidavit filed by respondent no.1, the respondent's counsel requested another adjournment to address any technical objections. Despite the Court's inclination to grant an adjournment for completing the necessary pleadings, the respondent's counsel expressed an inability to continue with the statement. Consequently, the Court decided to maintain the status quo regarding promotions from Income Tax Officers to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax until the next hearing scheduled for 15.11.2016.

4. In conclusion, the judgment primarily addresses the technical objection of the missing affidavit, the issue of discriminatory treatment faced by the applicant and others, the request for adjournment to rectify the objection, and the decision to uphold the status quo concerning promotions within the Income Tax department. The Court's focus on ensuring fairness and adherence to legal procedures is evident throughout the detailed analysis of the issues raised in the case.