Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: August 27, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 31, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
The work of important Tribunal like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should not be allowed to suffer on account of shortage of administrative staff. There is no lethargy on the part of the Dept in filing up said posts. The Dept is expected to follow up the proposals to fill up the posts of Assistant Registrars in such quota as well as for issuing promotions for the posts of Deputy Registrars so that all these pots to the extent possible can be filled up at the earliest

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2873 OF 2018
All India Federation of Tax Practitioners &
Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
……………….
 Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Sashank Dondu and Ms.
Neelam Jadhav for the Petitioners
 Mr. Anil C. Singh, ASG a/w Mr. Dharmesh Joshi & Mr. D.P. Singh
for the Respondents
……………….
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &
S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 27, 2019.
P.C.:

1. The petition is filed by All India Federation of Tax
Practitioners. Their grievance is that on account of the
Department not filling up various administrative posts in
different benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the
work of such Tribunals has seriously hampered. The prayer
is, therefore, made for directing the respondents to recruit
requisite number of Deputy Registrars and Assistant
Registrars of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

2. At our instance, the respondents had filed an affidavit
sworn in August 2019 in which it is pointed out that presently
there are 26 posts of Assistant Registrars in Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal. Mode of filling up these posts are 50% by
promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. It is stated that
against the promotion quota, 8 posts are filled up, however,
there are no further eligible candidates for promotion in the
feeder cadre. It is stated that 3 posts of direct recruitment
quota are filled up. The proposal is made for filling up
remaining posts of Assistant Registrars by direct
recruitment.

With respect to the posts of Deputy Registrars, it is
stated that there are 7 sanctioned posts for which 6 were
recommended for promotion, however, on account of
retirements and refusal to accept promotion, presently only
2 posts could be filled up. Here is also the proposal is
pending for filling up the posts in accordance with rules.

3. The petitioner’s grievance that the work of important
Tribunal like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should not be
allowed to suffer on account of shortage of administrative
staff is perfectly legitimate, however, we do not find any
lethargy on the part of the Department in not filing up said
posts. Under these circumstances, we would expect the
Department to follow up the proposals to fill up the posts of
Assistant Registrars in such quota as well as for issuing
promotions for the posts of Deputy Registrars so that all
these pots to the extent possible can be filled up at the
earliest. With these observations and direction, Writ Petition
is disposed of.
[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]

Related Judgements

  1. R. W. Promotions P. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) 

    There has been a breach of principles of natural justice in as much as the Assessing Officer has in his order placed reliance upon the statements of representatives of M/s Inorbit and M/s Nupur to come to the conclusion that claim for expenditure made by the appellant is not…
  2. CIT vs. TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) 

    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…
  3. PCIT vs. Piramal Glass Limited (Bombay High Court) 

    The legislature thus did not intend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the specified intangible assets but also to other categories of intangible assets which may not be possible to exhaustively enumerate. It was concluded that the assessee who had acquired commercial rights to sell products under…
  4. Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The Assessing Officer recorded that there was no reason for high premium of Rs.30 per share being paid by the investors. The assessee company had carried out no business during the entire period, except for collection of share application money. The responding investors also could not explain the source…
  5. Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) 

    In terms of Rule 127 and in particular, sub-rule (2) therefore, having regard to the further proviso therein, the Department had to deliver the notice of reassessment at the petitioner’s address given by her to the bank where her account was maitnained. No such steps were taken. Service of…
One comment on “All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)”
  1. dr g balakrishnan says:
    August 31, 2019 at 5:19 pm

    has to be filled up promptly is my view too

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

*