The author, an eminent senior advocate, expresses gratitude at the proactive role played by Courts in seeking to redress the inefficiencies of the department. However, while the strictures do shake the department out of its’ reverie for some time, the effect does not last long. The author suggests that a monitoring mechanism should be set up and the top brass of the department hauled up for non-compliance of the directives. The author has also identified the problem areas and suggested simple and cost-effective solutions to prevent the department from being on the wrong side of the law

The author bemoans the myopic attitude of the Government that even though hundreds of crores of revenue is locked up in litigation pending before the Tribunal, a few crores is not being spared for the day-to-day effective functioning of the Tribunal. Even strictures by the High Court in similar matters is not having any effect on the Government’s attitude rues the author. He pleads again with the powers that be to wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late to save the Tribunal

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, like any judicial body, has a number of procedural requirements that require to be complied with before an appeal can be heard. Unfortunately, several authorized representatives, though highly qualified CAs and Advocates, neglect to comply with the requirements with the result that their matters get adjourned and they waste their own time and that of the Bench and their clients incur unnecessary costs. To assist the Tribunal and the ARs in the cause of justice, the author, an eminent advocate, has prepared a comprehensive check-list of matters that need to be complied with. The author assures all taxpayers that if the check-list is religiously followed, they will have a smooth and pleasant experience before the Tribunal

The author, an eminent advocate, voices his exasperation at the continued indifference of the Government towards the well-being of the Tribunal. Though 3 long years have passed, the Government has not bothered to even appoint a full-time President for the Tribunal. The author warns the Government that patience amongst the stake-holders is running thin and that the Bar will, if driven to it, have no option but to seek relief from the High Court. He cautions that if this happens, the Government will face acute embarrassment and urges the Government to get its act together to ensure that such an eventuality does not happen

What was in the realm of fantasy till yesterday in now in the realm of reality, thanks to technological advancements. The author, a crusader for making legal justice affordable to the common man, argues that if setting up Benches of the Supreme Court in various cities is not possible then an alternative viable solution is for the Supreme Court to hear out-station matters by video-conferencing for the benefit of the common man. The pioneering steps taken in this regard by the Tribunal show that the concept is practical, feasible and cost-effective says the author

There have been a number of landmark judgements in the year 2012 and making a short-list of just 10 of them is not an easy task. Yet, the author, thanks to his experience and expertise, achieves this task. Of course, he can’t resist the temptation to make a “honourable mention” of several other important judgements. See, if you agree with his choice of the top-10 and his analysis of the judgements

The author agonizes that though four long years have elapsed since the controversy over the alleged corruption in the Tribunal broke out, nothing tangible appears to have been achieved. He warns that an important issue like this cannot be left unresolved for too long as it will otherwise begin to undermine the taxpayer’s confidence in the great Institution. Instead, the Government should take proactive steps to bring the truth in the open and the best way to do it is to appoint an experienced Judge to conduct an impartial probe, he says. He also implores the Law Minister to take a speedy decision over the long-pending issue of appointment of a permanent President and filling up vacancies in the posts of Sr. Vice Presidents

The author goes ballistic over the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in PWC‘s case that s. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be imposed if the assessee carelessly makes a wrong claim. He argues that the judgement neutralizes the deterrent effect of s. 271(1)(c) and is prone to abuse in the present regime of no scrutiny assessments. He fears that in the absence of a deterrent effect, assessees will be encouraged to ‘take a chance’ with bogus claims