Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 20, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 9, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Court records sincere appreciation for the proactive and sensitive manner in which the CIT has intervened to ensure that injustice caused to the party is addressed. His expression of regret for the inconvenience caused to the Petitioner for acts of his department is gracious and a very commendable and fair gesture, which is rarely noticed on the part of the Revenue. If such conduct would became the norm, the department itself would gain as the fairness in dealing with an assessee would automatically result in greater compliance of the laws by the tax payer. This secure in the belief the tax department would be fair and not treat the assessee as its enemy/adversary

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Senior Citizen of 82 years of age. This Petition, challenges the orders dated 22nd February, 2012 and 4th October, 2017 passed by the Assessing Officer, rejecting the Petitioner’s application for rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Petitioner by its application dated 24th May, 2000 sought rectification of the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, for Assessment Year 199798.

2 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax22 – Mr. Sachchidanand Srivastav has filed an affidavit dated 19th April, 2018. From the affidavit, it is clear that he has taken stock of the facts arising in this Petition. The affidavit very fairly states that in view of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) along with the material available on record, it is clear that the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the rectification application in respect of Assessment Year 199798.

The Commissioner of Income Tax has in his affidavit assured us that the issue would be resolved promptly and the refund along with interest thereon in accordance with the provisions of law, shall be granted to the PetitionerAssesssee, preferably within the period of six weeks from today. The affidavit also record the regret on the part of the Revenue for the inconvenience caused to the PetitionerAssesse.

3 In the above view, the impugned orders dated 22nd February, 2012 and 4th October, 2017, are quashed and set aside.

4 Before parting, we would like to place on record our sincere appreciation for the proactive and sensitive manner in which the Commissioner of Income Tax – Mr. Sachchidanand Srivastava has intervened to ensure that injustice caused to the party is addressed.

Moreover, very graciously he places on record his regrets for the inconvenience caused to the Petitioner for acts of his department. This, indeed, is a very commendable and fair gesture, which is rarely noticed on the part of the Revenue. All we can say if such conduct would became the norm, the department itself would gain as the fairness in dealing with an assessee would automatically result in greater compliance of the laws by the tax payer. This secure in the belief the tax department would be fair and not treat the assessee as its enemy/adversary.

3 comments on “Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  1. congrats satchitananand srivasthava, revenue ought to learn a lot from him why even ministers of finance why even prime ministers. if they learn then there is some sense in governance .see immanuel kant says religion without absolute morality is big nothing but most irreligious thought , that way people will fail to accept religions.

  2. vswami says:

    Instant:

    Makes for a welcome change ; more heartening is the fact that the judiciary has seized the rarest opportunity to-come-by, and have had a few words of commendation to say , -nay the ideal direction to follow- for the betterment of the plethora of detestable common experience, widely obtaining in the administration of the tax laws.

  3. sukumar says:

    Why the ITO shall not be punished for his action Sir ?
    In the fag end of FY 2017-18 Assessing Officers has passed high pitched Assessment order raising huge demand which are bad in law,with out any application of mind and forced the Assesse to pay @ 20% of the demand,even if appeal filed, as per CBDT circular.Karnataka High court ruling ignored .
    Such action do not convey clean message.

Leave a Reply

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

*

Top