Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

CIT vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Senior officers of the department summoned and strictures passed for ‘Irresponsible conduct’ of filing an appeal on a point which is admittedly covered against the department by a judgement of the Supreme Court

The department conceded before the Tribunal that the issue in the appeal was covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Supreme Court in CIT v/s Tulsyan NEC Ltd 330 ITR 226 (SC). However, despite this, the department filed an appeal before the High Court to challenge the order of the Tribunal. HELD by the High Court:

These state of affairs can hardly be termed as satisfactory. It is unfortunate that the Revenue is unable to make any distinction with regard to the legal position noted in the judgment of the Supreme Court of India and it is bound by the said judgment of the highest court in the country. The Revenue seems to be unaware of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and mandate thereof. Once there is nothing to the contrary, then, the authoritative pronouncement should bind all. The Tribunal then cannot be approached and equally this Court to complain about an adverse order. We are shocked that when such is the concession recorded that the Appeals of this nature are brought before this Court and it’s precious judicial time is wasted. Let the concerned Commissioner and who advised that such Appeal should be filed before this Court, remain present before us on the next date of hearing. After giving him an opportunity we would then record our dissatisfaction and proceed to impose costs. It is only to comply with the principles of natural justice and equally fairness and equity that we adopt this course.

… It is very unfortunate that we had to secure the presence of the highest officers in the department of Income Tax, for seeking an explanation on the points which we have raised in our order dated 12.09.2014.

.. The only intent to secure personal appearance of higher officials is to impress on the Revenue that larger public interest mandates and requires it not to waste precious time of the highest Court in the State by engaging it in frivolous Appeals and applications. It may be that, at the departmental level, the officers are not satisfied with adverse orders and desire to contest the issue or raise it before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, when the Tribunal follows and applies the ratio of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, then, we would expect the officers to gracefully accept an adverse verdict. Where no distinguishing feature can be pointed out, then, the law of the land must be allowed to prevail. The mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution of India is known to all. The further mandate of the Constitution as enshrined in Article 261(1) is giving of full faith and credit to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the union and of every State. Therefore, the law declared by the Supreme Court binds all and cannot be brushed aside. The repeated attempts to raise the same issues and questions in relation to same Assessee and year after year results in loss of precious judicial time and public revenue. We do not expect hereafter such an irresponsible conduct from the higher officers. Ordinarily, we would have in the absence of any explanation forthcoming, passed severe structures against the department and the officers in particular but we refrain from doing so since the concerned officials present in Court sincerely apologized for the lapse and urged that the Appeal may be disposed against the Revenue and in terms of our earlier orders so also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, both of which are binding on us. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed.

Note: In the wake of similar strictures passed in CIT vs. Sairang Developers (Bom High Court) and ITO vs. Growel Energy Co. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) the CBDT has set up a Committee to study the filing of appeals. In Larsen & Tuobro, the dept was directed to pay costs of Rs. 3 lakhs
4 comments on “CIT vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (Bombay High Court)
  1. Can any straighten dog’s tail is the fact reflected very well in the judges;

    all glorified accounts clerks shine in revenue at such exorbitant salaries and perks that is thanks to 6th central pay commission, but certainly at the cost of tax payers, in all levels upto and beyond CIT, duly supported by legal community as panels to revenue that shows poverty every where does dramatics n all kinds of professionals !

    God only save tax payers!

  2. NOW I THINK IT IS HIGH TIME HON COURT SUMMONS SECRETARY TO FINANCE MINISTRY MAT BE APPROPRIATE AS THESE REVENUE OFFICIALS MISERABLY FAILED IS APPARENT ON RECORD.

    SURE THAT SITUATION MAY VISIT SHORTLY . IF IT HAPPENS NOTHING TO BE WONDERED AT ALL.

    TILL THAT TIME LET WORTHY GLORIFIED CLERKS ENJOY THE FRUITS OF OFFICE!

  3. Sukumar Mondal says:

    They file appeal to save their skin with out any application of mind

  4. sunil says:

    SUCH PEOPLE SHOULD BE PENALISED HEAVILY

1 Pings/Trackbacks for "CIT vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (Bombay High Court)"
  1. […] CIT v. Reliance Infrastructure (Bom.) (HC)(www.itatonline.org), the Hon’ble High Court summoned the senior officials of the […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Top