COURT: | Bombay High Court |
CORAM: | A. K. Menon J., M. S. Sanklecha J |
SECTION(S): | 92 |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax, Transfer Pricing |
CATCH WORDS: | ALP, strictures, Transfer Pricing |
COUNSEL: | Dr. K. Shivram, Neelam Jadhav, Rahul Hakani |
DATE: | July 12, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | July 19, 2016 (Date of publication) |
AY: | - |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
Strictures passed against department for casual and careless representation despite huge revenue implications. Dept directed to take remedial measures such as updating the website, appointment of meritorious advocates, proper evaluation of work done by the advocates, ensuring even distribution of work amongst advocates etc. Prevailing practice of evaluating competence of advocates on basis of "cases won or lost" deplored |
Instruction No.3/2012 dated 11th April, 2012 of the CBDT also sets out the parameters of performance of the counsel for renewal of his appointment, one of the criteria mentioned therein is the number of cases won by the Counsel for the Income Tax department. This can never be a measure of competence of an Advocate i.e. an officer of the Court. In fact, the quality of the Advocate would be best judged by his performance and not in the result of the litigation. This evaluation can take place only when the Advocate is seen in action. We find that when the Advocates appear before us, very rarely are the Assessing Officer or other Officers involved in the litigation present in Court. In case, they are present, they would be able to give feedback to the Commissioner of Income Tax which could be factored in while briefing him and / or renewing his engagement
Recent Comments