9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n person on 7-11-2002 after paying the required fee of Rs. 500 praying for stay of collection of the gift-tax of Rs. 2,94,61,806 which includes interest of Rs. 21,82,356 in S.P. No.201/Hyd/02 that was heard on 13-12-2002 by this Tribunal. After hearing both parties, ultimately, the assessee's stay petition was rejected by the Tribunal on 20-12-2002 but granting early hearing of the appeal on Monday, the January 6,2003. Thus both the parties are before us in the instant hearing of this appeal. 3. The learned Junior Departmental Representative for the Revenue at the outset prayed for adjournment of the appeal having also filed his adjournment petition with the Registry mentioning that his Senior Departmental Representative Shri Deb Jyothi Das who is looking after the case is on leave. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee countered by submitting that: The disputed tax demand in the instant case is almost Rs. 3 crores. Though the Tribunal rejected on 20-12-2002 the assessee's stay petition, it was pleased to observe in its order that the learned counsel for the assessee fairly and ultimately did not raise objection to the submission of the Revenue that early hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y his letter dated 31-10-2002 informed the assessee as directed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, that the assessee's petition for stay of the collection of gift-tax has been rejected and that therefore to pay the tax immediately. Hence the assessee moved the Tribunal for hearing his stay petition which was also accordingly heard on 13-12-2002. Since the learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the Stay Petition could be rejected by the Tribunal as he has no objection for early hearing of the appeal itself and also expressed his undertaking not to pray for adjournment from the date of hearing of the appeal fixed in the open Court, i.e., Monday, the 6th January, 2003, the learned counsel for the assessee, as expressed by us in our order in the Stay Petition, fairly and ultimately did not raise any objection to such submission of the Revenue in granting early hearing and rejecting the stay petition. Accordingly, therefore, the stay petition was rejected by the Tribunal, however, imposing in its order the condition therein, as the Revenue's undertaking was expressed only orally, that the Department's non-compliance of its undertaking not to pray for adjournment of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions in a similar way deserve appreciation for at least restoration of the stay petition as ordered by the Tribunal itself on 20-12-2002 and more so the assessee apprehending imminent coercive steps by the Department on account of the TRO's letter and notice issued to the assessee including for proclamation of sale of the immovable property. In our considered opinion, there cannot be a better case than this to appreciate such submissions made by the assessee; otherwise, there would also be no sanctity to the undertakings given by the learned representatives whether they are for the Department or assessee irrespective of the fact that they are Junior or Senior and even if it be a Senior Advocate or a Standing Counsel. 5.6 We are aghast that matters are taken in a lighter vein by the learned Departmental Representative before us especially in a case which involves heavy stakes of almost Rs. 3 crores and that too when it has come up for final hearing in the foremost beginning of the New Year i.e. in the first week itself of January 2003, on the eve of the end of financial year fast approaching. Further more, we are pained to observe that the learned Junior Departmental Represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assist for the Tribunal's convenience insofar as its hearing and disposal of cases are concerned for correctly reaching the point of justice; otherwise cases could be decided ex parte rather both the parties. That apart, the Tribunal cannot also be pressurised to hear more cases on the ground of stay at the eleventh hour of the financial, year, the litigants having remained with inertia so far and suddenly getting awakened from coma. 5.9 Under the circumstances stated above, we consider as to why not cost also be awarded, at least nominal, on the Department to be paid to the assessee so that hollow and bald undertakings not realising the seriousness are not given by the learned Departmental Representatives and further the conditions imposed by the Tribunal inspite of specifically being recorded in its order are not given scant respect, besides in the general interest of both the parties to the litigations for improving the situation and impartially inspiring alertness and awareness for the litigants on both sides before this Tribunal. Here we are reminded of the earlier precedent where the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal somewhere in or around July 1999 ordered the Department to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
