2015 (8) TMI 771 - HC - Income Tax

Dismissal of revenue appeal for non removal of office objections - affidavit states that the revenue was not aware about the dismissal of the appeal and it was only on the direction of this Court on 10 June 2015 seeking the status of the appeal for the Assessment Year 2007-08 that he became aware of the dismissal. The affidavit states that there is nothing on record to indicate that his office was informed that the appeal for the Assessment Year 2007-08 was dismissed for non removal of office objections - Held that - At page 9 of the present appeal memo in bold which the appellant has not even bothered to remove makes the following observations Remark Please incorporate the present status of the appeals in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. This appeal memo was authorized and signed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and also verified and declared by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The present appeal was filed on 17 May 2013 containing the above remarks in bold. The officers were fully aware that the appeal for the Assessment Year 2007-08 had been dismissed on 29 November 2012. Remedial measures could have been taken then i.e. at time of filing the present appeal in 2013. We had also recorded our observation that many appeals are being filed by the revenue in this Court which stand concluded by earlier decisions of the Tribunal from which no appeals have been filed by revenue. Thus appeals are filed to this Court mechanically, without due application of mind. It was in the aforesaid circumstances that we were constrained to direct that a senior officer of the revenue take notice of the facts recorded in our order dated 29 June 2015 and take steps to ensure that the law is equally applied in all cases, besides ensuring that the officers of the revenue concerned keep themselves engaged in the proceedings before the Court till such time as the Court finally disposes of the appeal or writ, as the case may be. Not only the Commissioner of Income Tax who signed the present appeal memo and the Assessing Officer who verified the appeal memo have been less than careful. However to compound matters, we find that the affidavit of Mr. Singh dated 29 June 2015 states that there is nothing on the record that revenue was aware of the dismissal of the appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 till 10 June 2015. This is a serious lapse as it is incorrect. As the remark in bold in the present appeal clearly shows that the revenue was aware of the appeal for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Filing misleading affidavits in Court cannot be taken lightly and may warrant stringent action. Before we proceed to take any action, we would want to know what steps/action is the revenue taking against such officers.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Dismissal of revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09.
2. Lack of awareness regarding dismissal of appeal.
3. Filing of appeals mechanically without due application of mind.
4. Steps taken by revenue to rectify the situation.
5. Fixing responsibility for mistakes in the appeals.

Analysis:
1. The High Court noted that the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 by following its own order related to the respondent-assessee for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The Court highlighted the issue of dismissal and the need for proper handling of appeals.

2. The Court examined an affidavit filed by Mr. Virender Singh, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, stating that the revenue was unaware of the dismissal of the appeal for the Assessment Year 2007-08 until June 2015. However, the Court found contradictory evidence in the appeal memo, indicating that the revenue was aware of the dismissal in 2012 but failed to take remedial measures promptly.

3. It was observed that many appeals were being filed mechanically without proper consideration, leading to unnecessary burden on the Court. The Court directed senior revenue officers to ensure equal application of the law and active engagement in court proceedings to avoid casual or careless attitudes.

4. The Court reviewed steps taken by the revenue, as mentioned in an affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial), to improve the filing process and restore the dismissed appeal for the Assessment Year 2007-08. However, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of accountability and responsibility shown by revenue officers in addressing the mistakes in the appeals.

5. Emphasizing the seriousness of misleading affidavits and the need for stringent action, the Court highlighted the importance of holding responsible officers accountable for their actions. The Court adjourned the hearing to allow the revenue to provide information on the actions being taken against the officers involved, indicating a proactive approach towards addressing the issues raised in the case.