9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Respondent Assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03, which has been followed by the impugned order. Although no affidavit has been filed indicating the reasons as to why the Revenue has preferred the present appeal on the above two issues when the earlier order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2002-03 has been accepted by the Revenue. The statement is made by Mrs. Bharucha is on the basis of instructions given by one Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav in his letter dated 15th January, 2016. The same is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Accordingly, questions (b) and (c) also do not raise any substantial question of law and are not entertained. - Income Tax Appeal No. 2145 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs. S.V. Bharucha For the Respondent : Ms. A. Vissanji a/w S.J. Mehta i/b M/s. S.P. Mehta Co ORDER P. C. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act) challenges the order dated 12th January, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. The Revenue has raised the following three questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Respondent Assessee's case itself for the Assessment Year 2002-03 in ITA No.3858/Mum/2006 to grant benefit to the Respondent Assessee. On the last occasion i.e. on 12th January, 2016 as the Memo of Appeal did not indicate any challenge to the earlier order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2002-03 nor any other reason justifying an appeal of the above two questions. Further, no affidavit to the above effect was also filed nor was Mrs. Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue briefed by Officers of the Revenue on the above issues, we had adjourned the appeal to today. 5. We had in our order dated 12th January, 2016 expressed our displeasure of the manner in which this appeal and numerous other appeals are being prosecuted by the Revenue. This improper presentation of the case on the part of the Revenue seems to arise on account of non furnishing all the necessary information by the Officers of the Revenue to the learned Counsel who appear on their behalf as in this case. In our order dated 12th January, 2016 we had recorded as under : 5. We have in numerous orders held that whenever the Tribunal follows its own order to grant a relief to assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders being passed by us, we notice that the officers of the Revenue are not complying with our aforesaid directions. This leads to likelihood of arbitrary action on the part of the Revenue Officers to pick and choose the assessee in respect of whom, they would prefer an appeal to this Court. This is not expected of the State whose duty is to be fair to all assessees and treat them equally. This infact is an essential of the Rule of Law. 8. The Registry is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, who must explain by filing a necessary affidavit indicating the steps being taken by the Commissionerates to ensure that the directions of this Court are complied. This only to ensure that the assessees are not put to unnecessary harassment in view of likely arbitrary action on the part of the Officers of the Revenue. The affidavit must be filed before the next date of hearing. 6. Consequent to the above directions, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has filed an affidavit dated 18th January, 2016. The affidavit relies upon the order of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax-10 Vs. M/s. Synchem Chemicals (I) Ltd. in Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and follows it by stating that the facts are identical, then in such cases where an appeal is filed from the subsequent order, the memo of appeal should mention whether any appeal has been preferred from the earlier order. If it is accepted, the reason for pursuing the impugned order in appeal before this Court must be indicated. If it is not recorded in the appeal memo, the Officer should file an affidavit indicating the above facts. 8. Inspite of the aforesaid decision of this Court and the Circular being relied upon in the affidavit dated 18th January, 2016 filed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the fact is that the same is not being implemented by the Officers of the Revenue as evident from our order dated 12th January, 2016 as extracted hereinabove and the Commissioners seem to turn a Nelson's eye to it. We would have expected the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to point out as to what steps are being taken at the Commissionerate level to ensure that the Officers of the Revenue follow the decisions of this Court as recorded in the Communication dated 2nd November, 2015 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax Officer (Judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a). However, on perusal of the order dated 28th October, 2013 of the Supreme Court dismissing the Revenue's SLP, there is justification for the Revenue to prosecute this appeal on question (a) as only an SLP filed by the Revenue challenging the order of this Court in Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Supra) has been dismissed. Thus, it is not a case where the order of this Court in Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Supra) has merged into the order of the Apex Court dismissing the appeal after grant of leave. However, it would have been better if the above reason was taken by the Revenue and mentioned in an affidavit filed by it along with a copy of the order dated 28th October, 2013 of the Apex Court dismissing the Revenue's SLP from the order of this Court in Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Supra). This would have ensured that there is due application of mind on the part of the Officers of the Revenue including the impact of the order of the Apex Court to this appeal before pressing its appeal on the above issue. It appears that the question (a) was being pressed by the Revenue, even though it was accepted by them that the issue is concluded against them by the decision of the Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
