9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch greater to ensure that justice is done and common people/ citizens are not harassed. This conduct on the part of the Revenue's Counsel of not taking proper instructions and arguing matters as they perceive a debatable point involved, does lead to undue harassment of the tax payers-Respondent. We understand that while appointing panel Advocates for the Revenue, the requirement of having practiced for some number of years is not insisted upon in case a person has domain expertise, such as retired Officers of Revenue. If this indeed be the practice, it would, in our view, need revisiting the same. This is so, as the skill and conduct required to appear as an Advocate, are honed by working in the chambers of an experienced Advocate, particularly that he is part of a system which seeks to ensure that Justice is achieved, beyond the cause of the client. It is indeed for the CBDT to decide and take appropriate action. Undoubtedly, these retired Officers do have domain expertise and do render assistance. - Income Tax Appeal No.778 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 18-4-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. Anil Singh, ASG with Mr. P. C. Chhotaray and Ms. Geetika Gandhi, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t about 30 minutes trying to understand the grievance of the Revenue on question no.(iii) and the opposition by the respondent assessee to the question being entertained. After hearing the parties as we were to commence dictating our order, that Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that he has during the time the appeal was being heard for admission, obtained from his client, a copy of the order dated 29th July, 2015 passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the impugned order dated 22nd October, 2014 on this issue. In support, he tenders a copy of the same across the bar. 5. On examination of the order dated 29th July, 2015, we enquired of Mr. Chhotaray as to why we were informed that no order consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 22nd October, 2014 has been passed by the Assessing Officer on this issue. Mr. Chhotaray again informs us that the Assessing Officer, who has instructed him in this matter, met him twice and had specifically told him that no order has been passed consequent to the impugned order dated 22nd October, 2014 of the Tribunal in respect of this issue. We thereafter commenced dictation of this o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue appropriately at the hearing of the appeal. 10. Stand over to 26th February, 2018. 2 Thereafter, on 23rd February, 2018, an Affidavit of Mr. Kiran Unavekar, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was filed. The Affidavit specifically states that: I further say that the specific issue, whether the AO had given effect to the order dated 22-10-2014 of the Hon'ble ITAT, was not discussed with Shri P. C. Chhotaray, the Sr. Standing Counsel, either by the Inspector of the charge or by me. I say that I met Shri P. C. Chhotaray, the Ld. Counsel for the Revenue only once i.e. 24012018 and not twice as state by Shri P. C. Chhotaray in the Hon'ble Court. . . . . . . . I say that the information given by Shri P. C. Chhotaray, the Sr. Counsel of the Revenue in the Hon'ble Court that no effect was given to the order of the Hon'ble ITAT may probably have been given as it was not the part of his record. I say that I sincerely apologise to the Hon'ble Court for the incorrect information given by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Revenue due to communication gap, which led to unintended waste of time of the Hon'ble Court. 3. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt of Law as place to score debating points. The only reasonable things to do in the above circumstances, would have been to take time to check and not insist that he has instructions twice over and contend that no order has been passed. 5. Moreover, if this conduct is permitted at the bar, then it would become a practice for an Advocate to make a statement, on instructions and thereafter, when the events do not turn out as desired by litigants, the Advocate will turn around and state that he had misunderstood his client. This cannot be a norm. We accept statements made by Advocates on behalf of their client without demur, as an Advocate of this Court, we proceed on the basis that he would be more then a mere spokesman for his clients. Thus, every statement made by an Advocate on facts, affecting the case, would be made with responsibility after checking the fact. We are constrained/ compelled to take note of and pass this order as this arguing for the sake of arguing without taking into account the factual context is happening too often, even after we have made numerous attempts to impress upon the Advocates who appear for the Revenue, that they are appearing for the State and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r responsibility comes to end. This cannot be. 7. We understand that while appointing panel Advocates for the Revenue, the requirement of having practiced for some number of years is not insisted upon in case a person has domain expertise, such as retired Officers of Revenue. If this indeed be the practice, it would, in our view, need revisiting the same. This is so, as the skill and conduct required to appear as an Advocate, are honed by working in the chambers of an experienced Advocate, particularly that he is part of a system which seeks to ensure that Justice is achieved, beyond the cause of the client. It is indeed for the CBDT to decide and take appropriate action. Undoubtedly, these retired Officers do have domain expertise and do render assistance. However, the conduct and role of an Advocate is much more than that of being an expert in tax matters. This has to be realized by the domain expert Advocates. An Advocate must have a broader vision and look upon themselves as Officers of the Court, assisting the Court to do justice and not right or wrong, my client is correct as now done by some of the Advocates for the Revenue. In fact, in this context, we had earlier als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dard expected of Advocates before they start representing the State. This is only a suggestion and it is entirely for the CBDT to take appropriate steps to ensure that the Revenue is properly represented to serve the greater cause of justice and fair play. 9. In any case, we would expect the CBDT to lay down a standard procedure in respect of manner in which the Departmental Officer/ Assessing Officer assist the Counsel for the Revenue while promoting/ protecting Revenue's cause. We find in most cases, atleast during the final hearing, Revenue's Counsel are left to fend for themselves and that even papers at times are borrowed from the other side or taken from the Court Records. If the mind set of the Revenue Officer changes and they attend to the case diligently till it is disposed of, only then would it be ensured that the State is properly represented. 10 We direct the learned ASG and the Registry to forward a copy of this order to the Chairman, CBDT. We would expect the learned ASG to interact and advice the CBDT in respect of the issues referred to herein above to enable proper representation by the Advocates on behalf of the Revenue. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
