fight-copy

The author laments that while a heinous crime like terrorism is being fought spiritedly with commandos and bullets, not much is being done about corruption. He warns that corruption is a cancer which is slowly corroding the roots of our society and urges that it is our duty to fight corruption with the same spirit with which we fight terrorism.

1. Honorable Shri Justice R.C. Lahoti, former Chief Justice of India, while addressing the National Tax Conference of the Federation at Indore on 7-9-2002 (AIFTP Journal, Sept., 2002 P. 7) has stated as under:

“Corruption is a cancer eating in to the roots of the society. It is difficult to fight against corruption because the chances of success are bleak; but this is no reason for despondency. Nobody is born corrupt; it is the vitiated atmosphere in the society and the system of governance which converts the clean in to corrupt. An honest person resists corruption but allurements and temptations at times prevail upon him and once corrupt, even an honest person prefers and finds it convenient to stay corrupt. The seeds of corruption are sown in the mind of the man and the cure, if any, lies in eradicating the seeds of corruption from his mind. An honest revenue official says “The honest are hounded; they are humiliated; they are ignored; they are manipulated; they are used, they are punished; they became the laughing stock in society and their families; even their very honesty is suspected. In spite of that, there are many honest officers in the department who remain honest against all adversities. They are special species; they have to be preserved and protected.”

Read more ›

The author warns of a serious conflict of interest in permitting serving Commissioner (Appeals) to argue appeals on behalf of the Department before the ITAT. He argues that no person can be a judge and a lawyer at the same time.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 has observed that justice should not only be done, but also should appear to have been done.

It has been observed that in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, very often the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who has to adjudicate the appeals filed against the order passed by the Assessing Officer has been deputed to argue the matters before the Appellate Tribunal. It means in the morning he has to defend an issue on behalf of the department and afternoon when he functions as an appellate authority, he has to decide the same issue as an independent quasi-judicial authority. Can he do justice to the assessee as an independent quasi-judicial authority? By deputing the quasi-judicial authority to represent the matters before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal the purpose of appointing the quasi judicial authority has been lost, howso ever impartial he may be. His function as a departmental representative has grave impact on his judicial function as an appellate authority. It may also be appreciated that when an officer represent the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal he has to defend the matter on behalf of the department, he has no authority to concede though personally he may of the opinion that the department has no case. Whereas when a lawyer represents the matter he has to assist the Court to arrive at a correct decision and he may withdraw certain grounds whereas such a power is not with the officers of the tax department when they represent the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Read more ›

The author passionately calls the Tribunal a “Temple of Justice” and the Bench and the Bar its’ “Trustees”. He gives out the clarion call that the onus is on the Bench and the Bar to preserve the dignity, sanctity and purity of this Temple

1. The Tribunal is the final fact finding authority and if it wrongly decides the matter the assessee is virtually left with no remedy. An appeal to High Court can be only on substantial question of law. Litigants before the Tribunal are of two categories, the aggrieved assessee and the Government. But the objective of filing appeal is different for both categories. An assessee rings the bell of justice before the Tribunal, only when the Assessing Officer makes additions which are not in accordance with law or facts. Appeals before the Tribunal involve, time and money, both of which he can ill afford to squander. Before doing so he makes a careful cost benefit analysis and elects to appeal only when the stakes are high and there is reasonable chance of success. Assessee is not an academician and does not derive any pleasure in obtaining a judgment for the sake of publicity or for laying down a legal precedent. The Government through different functionaries, on the other hand, files appeals, in most of the cases mainly out of fear of being questioned by superiors as to why appeal was not filed. Secondly, the Government does not have to pay any appeal fees. Thirdly assuming the appeal is dismissed there is no accountability of the officers to explain as to why such appeal frivolous are being filed. Considering the above scenario, the Members of the Tribunal have a greater responsibility. While hearing the appeals they are not merely adjudicating on the issues before them but they are invariably deciding on the fortune of the assessee. Whereas, one wrong decision against an assessee may ruin his life and relegate him to the position of a pauper, the same against the Government may affect the coffers of the Government only to an extent of a drop in an ocean. Hence, the Tribunal Members have greater responsibility to the citizen.

Read more ›

The author makes the radical suggestion that the retirement age of judges may be increased …. but wait …. there’s a catch! …. He wants their right to practice before the lower courts to be taken away! Any takers for this suggestion?

1. At present the judges of the Apex court retire at the age of 65, whereas the judges of High Courts and the members of the ITAT retire at the age of 62. Most of the judges of the Apex Court even after retirement render service to the nation by chairing various forums, like Authority for Advance Rulings till the age of 68. Similarly the judges of the High Courts also serve as chairman, president or members of various quasi-judicial forums, like, Administrative Tribunals, Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, SEBI Tribunal, etc., where the age limit is 65. When the judges can render service as chairman of various forums and render the Judicial service which they were rendering earlier on the bench there is no reason why the age limit should not be raised. If the Government can retain the services of judges for another three years, it will be a great service to the nation and the pendency of cases before High Courts will reduce.

2. In India many professionals join the judiciary with the intention of serving the nation and not with the intention of getting a permanent job in the Government. A fresh law graduate when he joins a multinational gets much more than a sitting judge of High Court, who may have put in more than 20 years of practice in law. Experience of a judge and his knowledge is an asset to the justice delivery system; hence it is in the interest of the nation to raise the age limit of judges.

Read more ›

The author lashes out at the tax department for stonewalling the sincere efforts of the Court to reduce the arrears of tax matters by seeking repeated adjournments. He points out the problem areas and also outlines practical suggestions to help the department overcome its perennial drawbacks.

City of Mumbai contributes 40% of Direct Taxes revenue to Government of India. Also more than 40% of tax litigation is from the city of Mumbai. Significantly more than 70% appeals and references pending before the Bombay High Court are from the Revenue. It is on record that more than 4,000 tax appeals were filed late necessitating condonation of delay first before the matter can be taken up for hearing. To reduce the pendency of notices of motions filed by the tax department the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court allotted the work to eight tax benches. Tax Bar is of the considered view that by end of August at least all the notices of motions may be disposed of. More than 2,000 Tax appeals were pending for admission since 2002. To reduce the pendency, all tax appeals have been allotted to four tax benches. Tax Bar has made representation to the Hon’ble Chief Justice to have only one tax Bench dedicated to direct taxes and one tax bench for other taxes. Hon’ble Chief Justice has agreed with the view of the Tax Bar and constituted a tax bench only for hearing tax appeals and references and it is working very satisfactorily and is able to dispose large number of tax appeals and references. However, the Bar is of the considered view that instead of having four tax benches, if all pending notices of motion, tax appeals are transferred to one tax bench which is hearing the tax appeals and references, the disposal will accelerate and it will also help the tax administration to improve co-ordination and effective representation. This will prevent the embarrassing situation of different Benches taking different view in respect of identical issue.

Read more ›

Judges want to be exempted from the rigours of the Right to Information Act (“RTI”) even for their non-judicial activities. And rightly so because the information that one can dig up on the honourables can be quite embarrassing to them.

CNN-IBN reported that it put in an RTI application which threw up interesting details of how judges extended their holidays, often for personal purposes, at Government expense.

It reported that Balakrishnan, soon after taking over as Chief Justice, was bitten by the travel bug. He made at least seven trips abroad in 2007 traveling First Class with his wife with the air fare alone costing over a whopping Rs 39 lakh.

Apparently, during his 11-day trip to Pretoria, South Africa in August 2007, the Chief Justice took the following route – Delhi, Dubai, Johannesburg, Nelspruit, Capetown, Johannesburg, Victoria Falls, where the judge finally didn’t go and returned via Dubai to Delhi.

The air fare alone cost Rs 5.70 lakh and did not include the stay, TA, DA or Entertainment Allowance. Entertainment Allowance itself was over Rs 80,000.

Predictably, Union Law Minister HR Bhardwaj reacted in a belligerent fashion “They also need comfort; they also need to go out. Why they should be deprived of it.” He was also sympathetic of the judges’ need to be accompanied by wives though government rules that say judges cannot be accompanied by wives on work tours. “How can you deprive the wife? You are a woman. You should understand,” Bhardwaj is reported as having lashed out at the CNN-IBN correspondent.

Read more ›

The author is severely critical of the Government for the failure of the Settlement Commission to achieve its desired objects. He blames bad administration, lack of transparency in the process of appointment and failure of the Government to appoint Members from the profession as the root causes of the problem. He has identified a few critical areas and makes a fervent plea for reform.

One can say that Income-tax Act was the first fiscal law that had an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism inasmuch as Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) existed since 1976 on the statute book. Wanchoo Committee had suggested formation of a Permanent Settlement Tribunal in its report instead of repetitive disclosure schemes in following words: “this, does not mean that the door for compromise with an errant tax-payer should for ever remain closed. In the administration of fiscal laws, whose primary objective is to raise revenue, there has to be room for compromise and settlement.”

By Finance Act, 2007 far reaching changes have been made to provisions for settlement of tax cases and with effect from 1-4-2008 one can say that ITSC is on statute book only for name sake. Only a few applications have been filed under the new provisions – though one can say that approximately only 400 applications being filed annually even under the old provisions showed that there was something seriously wrong with the provisions and its implementation. It cannot be denied that what Wanchoo Committee said in 1976 is true even today, rather type of dispute between the department and the assessee has undergone a sea change and it is the experience of the bar that there is need for a proper alternative dispute resolution forum. For a long time, it has been suggestion of AIFTP that there has to be a mechanism for resolution of tax disputes otherwise than by way of litigation. Like in commercial transactions, where conciliation proceedings are resorted to instead of litigation, similarly for tax disputes there has to be an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

Read more ›

The author laments that while the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is globally recognized as one of the best tax tribunals for its independence and competence, its reputation at home is under a cloud owing to the allegations of corruption. He makes a fervent plea that the Bench and the Bar has to play a positive role to maintain the dignity, sanctity and integrety of the Tribunal. He also outlines a few suggestions towards this end.

1. Courts and Tribunals are temples of justice. They are viewed with great sanctity and reverence. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is in existence for more than 67 years and is one of the oldest temples of justice in our country. Recent CBI raid on the residence of the sitting member of the ITAT has shaken the faith and confidence as well as sullied the reputation of this great institution. The Federation is of the opinion that there has to be speedy and impartial examination of the entire episode. If it is held to be a frame up, the member concerned should be reinstated with dignity and Bar should make sincere attempt that such incidents do not recur. On the other hand if it is found that the incident to be correct, the Bar and Bench will have to play a positive role to eradicate the cancer of corruption from the institution. There has to be national debate and like minded people and members must come together and try to find a workable solution for eradicating the seeds of corruption from the roots of the institution.

Read more ›

The author laments that the Government is losing crores of rupees due to delay in filing of tax appeals by the tax department. He makes out a fervent case for accountability.

It has been observed that in last two years the department is filing most of the appeals after inordinate delay ranging from 50 days to 1200 days. The only reason is restructuring of tax administration and delay in getting approval from the Ministry of Law. The Tax Bench has already disposed about 3000 notices of motion and another 3,000 notices of motion may be pending for condonation of delay. If this trend continues it is very unfortunate that the courts precious time will be devoted only for hearing of notices of motion of tax department and court may not have the time to deal with important tax matters. This will increase the pendency before the High Court.

When pendency increases the questions will be raised in the Parliament that as the High Court is not able to dispose the tax matters for years hence they have to go ahead with the proposed National Tax Tribunal. One may have to consider: Why delay in filing of appeal in most of the cases? Is it really worth filing of belated appeals before the court? And who is accountable for delay?

If High Court dismisses 70% of notices of motions; i.e., 4200, apart from tax revenue, actual expenditure will be at least 4.20 crores on stamp papers and another 4.20 crores will be for drafting and representing etc. All this expenses are met out of the tax-payers money. Why tax-payers money should be spent on such an unproductive purpose. More than 16,000 appeals are filed every year before the Tribunal by the tax department. There is no delay. Why there is delay in filing appeals to the High Court?

This requires serious consideration of the Government.

We hope tax administration will take some remedial measures.

Dr. K. SHIVARAM
Editor-in-Chief AIFTP

SPEEDY JUSTICE IN TAX MATTERS — PENDENCY OF TAX APPEALS ARE REDUCED IN MUMBAI.

Our Constitution provides for an independent and efficient justice delivery system. No doubt there are delays in disposing the tax matters. On analysing the causes for delay one will find that delay is not because of courts but it is due to tax administration. In tax matters 70% of appeals are by tax department.

Statistics shows that, the Tax Benches of Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Justice Mr. F.I. Rebello and Justice Mr. J.P. Devadhar and Justice F.I. Rebello and Justice R.S. Mohite in the period 21st June, 2007 to March 2008, has disposed of 6,513 tax matters and admitted 963 matters (total 7,476) matters (Click here for details). The court working days for the period was 180 days giving average 415 matters per day has been disposed of. It may be for the first time such a large number of tax matters were disposed of. This has helped to reduce the pendency of tax matters before the Bombay High Court. At present the pendency of tax appeals is 2,600 and references is 2,100. If tax bench sits for full week to hear only the direct tax matters, the pendency of tax matters can be substantially reduced, this will help the assessee as well as the department.

The members of the Bar have also observed that lot of time of the court is lost just to find out what has happened in the earlier year, the department is not able to answer whether appeals are filed or not. To overcome such a situation the ITAT Bar Association has made a suggestion, that while filing an appeal the tax department and the assessee should file a fact sheet with certain particulars in the specimen proforma (Click here). If the same is furnished it will save substantial time of court and will benefit the assessee as well as department. It will also help to group matters involving common issues. This will also help the process of computerisation. If the experience is satisfactory the same may be implemented in other High Courts and also Apex Court. If Central Board of Direct Taxes takes some initiatives all pending tax matters before various High Courts can be computerised and within two years of filing of appeal the matters can be heard and disposed of. This will save tax-payers money and possibly we may not require proposed National Tax Tribunal. A thought for debate.

Dr. K. SHIVARAM
Editor-in-Chief AIFTP