Arun Ganesh Jogdeo vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

DATE: August 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
Dept directed to follow directions of Delhi High Court in 352 ITR 273 and to be vigilant and ensure that such mistakes do not occur. Dept directed to set up a self-auditing vigilance cell to redress taxpayers' grievances

The Petitioner filed a PIL to bring out the irregularities committed by the Income Tax Department. It was submitted that the Delhi High Court has also passed the strictures against the Income Tax Department in a similar Petition, which was filed in the Delhi High Court and which was disposed of by the order dated 14th March, 2013 (Court On Its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income-tax 352 ITR 273). The Petitioner has invited attention to the said Judgment and Order passed by the Delhi High Court and took the Court through the various alleged mistakes committed by the Income Tax Department in issuing incorrect notices under Sections 244 and 245 of the Income Tax Act, thereby seeking recovery from number of income tax assessees. He brought to the Court’s notice the immense hardships caused to all these income tax assessees as a result of the alleged mistakes committed by the Income Tax Department. It is submitted that the initial returns, which were taken by the Income Tax Department, were due to a technical error, which is rectified. It was alleged that there was a bug in the computer system. According to the Petitioner, this has been done deliberately. In reply, the department submitted that the directions given by the Delhi High Court have been followed in letter and spirit. HELD by the High Court:

The Income Tax authorities shall follow the directions given by the Delhi High Court in case of Court On Its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income-tax 352 ITR 273 in other cities, including the city of Mumbai, in Maharashtra State. We hope and trust that the Income Tax Department will be more vigilant and ensure that such mistakes will not occur in future. We also direct the Income Tax Department to form a Vigilance Cell to ensure that there is a monitoring authority, which would monitor various policy decisions which are taken and a self auditing mechanism is required to be formulated to ensure that the income tax assessees are not made to run from pillar to post for the purpose of redressal of their grievances.

6 comments on “Arun Ganesh Jogdeo vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
  1. Varaprasad Daitha says:

    I wish to know whether any one in the CBDT read these articles and views. If yes, it is to be construed that they do not care to act / react.

    • Rajesh bhardwaj says:

      Sir, many officers may be reading but may not while in service react publicly in view of conduct rules which restrict them from going to press/ media. However, you will be happy to know that CBDT has recently called for five contentious issues from industry which trouble tax payers and cbdt will issue instructions on them for all india uniform application by the field formations so that varying views taken by taxing authorities in different stations or in cases of different assesses can be avoided on the issue. This may reduce misuse of discretionary powers by assessing authorities. Let’s hope it works out well and harassment of tax payers becomes a thing of the past.

    • Arun Ganesh Jogdeo says:

      As said, Income Tax Department has not formed vigilance cell to curb inter-departmental cyber crimes and also not formed self auditing mechanism to tally all India collection of TDS with all tax-payer’s total of 6th line of 143(1): Demand notice TDS amount. The Petitioner of PIL is now filing contempt of the Court for the same purpose.

  2. Dipakkumar J Shah says:

    Hats off to Their Lordships of Bombay High Court . Party in Person is allowed with due respect . The Contents of Petition is taken care off properly. Whereas in My PIL nothing is taken care of. !!!! Though full contents in Petition written. Dismissed only in last 22 years!!! On the Contrary Door of High Court has been closed for Party In Person. If Special Committee decide that whether petitioner is proper to appear Before Hon. Court or not . If not though proper he is compulsorily had to engage Advocate !!!!! Too much expensive to be met with!!!! This rule in High Court of Gujarat has been changed in 2012/2013. Which is also very against the Constitutional rights of a person , alma rights of a person , granted under our Sacred Constitution of India . Who cares!!!
    Hats off to Bombay High Court.
    Whereas in Gujarat High Court in a case where Vijaya Bank and State Bank of India indulged in a bad practice in collusion with the Companies for payment of dividend , beyond due date of payment and money was not received on the date of cheque drawn and allowed to draw a cheque of a particular date , and in colluusion with company allowed to do such contravention of the Companies Act 1956 ,was there , nothing done dismissed!!! Though every thing was clear on the Petition!!!! No affidavit was filed in this case by Vijaya Bank and State Bank of India !!! Which is normal in a case as per Civil procedure Code!!!

  3. Arun Ganesh Jogdeo says:

    The cat was out from the bag when affidavit was submitted in Bombay High court. It was admitted that in issuing bogus demand notices u/s 143(1) there was “Human intervention” in the software code by Directorate of Income Tax. In short Directorate of Income Tax did this mischief of issuing bogus demand notices.

  4. Adv. Arun Ganesh Jogdeo says:

    Even after 1 1/2 Year of Orders of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Income Tax Department is turning its deaf ears to implement the orders of Bombay High Court namely: (1) Setting up Vigilance cell to curb stupid Computer mistakes of non-match of 26AS amounts with 143(1) sixth line of TDS paid by Assessee. (2) Setting up of Self auditing mechanism to check up the tally of 26AS amounts with 143(1) demand notice sixth line printing for tax-payers all over India.
    The Information Commissioner Mr. Bimal Julka has passed very strong and stricturing comments on this attitude of Income Tax Department of inaction of even responding to RTI about the same.
    Please read the decision/Orders of Central Information Commission.
    Appeal No. CIC/CCITM/A/2016/304296-BJ dated 16.06.2017. It is available on net.

Leave a Reply

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