Babita Lila vs. UOI (Supreme Court)

DATE: August 31, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
Prosecution: Important law relating to the territorial jurisdiction and competence of the Deputy Director of Income-tax to lodge a complaint for evasion of tax explained

(i) The essence of the discord is the competence of the Deputy Director, Income Tax (Investigation)-I, Bhopal (M.P.) to lodge the complaint. Whereas, according to the appellants, he is not the authority or the forum before which appeals would ordinarily lie from the actions/decisions of the I.T.Os. who had recorded their statements, as mandated by Section 194(4) of the Code, it is urged on behalf of the respondent that having regard to the overall scheme of the Act, he indeed was possessed of the appellate jurisdiction to maintain the complaint. As nothing much turns on the ingredients of the offences under Sections 193,196,200 IPC qua the issue to be addressed, detailed reference thereto is considered inessential. The relevant provisions of the Act next demand attention.

(ii) As enumerated under Section 116 of Chapter XIII of the Act, Deputy Director of Income tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) amongst others are the designated income tax authorities. Section 118 authorises the Central Board of Direct Taxes constituted under the Central Board of Revenue Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) to direct by notification in the official gazette that any income tax authority or authorities specified therein would be subordinate to such other income tax authority or authorities as may be specified in such notification.

(iii) As would be evident from the above extract, it deals exclusively with the inter se subordination of the authorities mentioned therein so much so that Income Tax Officers have been made subordinate to Assistant Directors or Assistant Commissioners within whose jurisdiction they perform their functions or other income tax authorities under whom they are appointed to work and to any other income tax authority to whom the Assistant Director or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be or other income tax authority is subordinate. Noticeably this clause does not spell out any territorial barriers but logically warrant some order/notification to activate the functional mechanism in order to address the institutional exigencies.

(iv) Our attention has not been drawn to any document to this effect. Additionally as well, the decisive and peremptory prescription of Section 195(4) of the Code is not merely the levels of the rank inter se but the recognised appellate jurisdiction ordinarily exercised by the authority or the forum concerned for a complaint to be validly lodged by it, if in a given fact situation, the initiation of prosecution is sought to be occasioned not by the court in the proceedings before which the contemplated offence(s) had been committed, but by a court to which ordinarily appeals therefrom would lie.

(v) Considerable emphasis has been laid on behalf of the respondent on the provisions of the Act outlining the jurisdiction of the income tax authorities as encompassed in Sections 120 and 124 of the Act in particular. Section 120 provides that income tax authorities would exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on or as the case may be assigned to such authorities under the Act in accordance with such directions as the Board may issue in this regard. The factors to be taken note of by the Board or any other income tax authority authorised by it for such purposes have also been prescribed. As a necessary corollary, the Board can also by general or special order and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein, authorise such authorities as enumerated in sub-section (4) thereof to perform such functions, as may be assigned. 54. The powers of an assessing officer vested with the jurisdiction as permitted by Section 120 of the Act, extends as is clarified by Section 124, to any person carrying on business or profession, if the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situated within the limits of the area over which such officer had been vested with the jurisdiction or if the person concerned carries on business in more places than one, if the principal place of his business or profession is situated within the area over which the assessing officer has jurisdiction. In addition, such officer would have also jurisdiction in respect of any other person residing within the area. Sub-section 3 of Section 124 debars a person to call in question the jurisdiction of an assessing officer in the eventualities as mentioned in sub-clauses (a) and (b) thereof. 55. The power with regard to discovery, production of evidence etc. and the officer empowered to exercise the same has been dealt with in details in Section 131 of the Act. The procedure to be complied with in Page 27 27 conducting search and seizure has been delineated in Section 132 of the Act. Seemingly, to this extent, the parties are one and ad idem.

(vi) The bone of contention lies in the interpretation of Section 246 of the Act in particular which is contained in Chapter XX dealing with Appeals and Revision. Whereas Section 246 catalogues the orders of an assessing officer other than those of the Deputy Commissioner from which appeal would lie to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Section 246A lists the orders from which appeal would lie to the Commissioner (Appeals). Admittedly, the categories of orders specified under Section 246(1) of the Act do not include one stemming from any proceeding before an assessing officer under Section 132 of the Act pertaining to search or seizure. Noticeably though under Section 116 of the Act, as referred to hereinabove, under clause (d) thereof, Deputy Director of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have been bracketed together, it is only the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), as is apparent from Section 246(1), who has been conferred with the appellate jurisdiction to entertain appeals, albeit from specified orders passed by an assessing officer as mentioned in that sub-section. The Deputy Director of Income Tax in particular, has not been designated to be the appellate authority or forum from such orders or any other order of the assessing officer. Having regard to the issue to be addressed, it is considered inessential to dilate on Section 246A which deals with the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals).

(vii) Our attention has not been drawn to any provision of the Act whereunder the Deputy Director of Income Tax has been designated to Page 28 28 be an authority or forum before whom an appeal would lie from any order of any subordinate officer including the I.T.O.. To reiterate, I.T.Os. are included in the classes of income tax authorities as per Section 116 of the Act and having regard to the hierarchy designed, they are subordinate in rank to the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

(viii) On a conjoint reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is thus patent that the statute has not only identified the income tax authorities but also has specified their duties and jurisdiction, territorial and otherwise. It has stipulated as well the eventualities and the pre-requisites, for the exercise of such jurisdiction or performance of the duties assigned to ensure effective and purposeful implementation of the provisions thereof. These functional framework indubitably has been made for the desired conduct of the organisational affairs as legislatively intended.

(ix) The word “ordinary” as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, reads thus: “Ordinary: occurring in regular course of events; normal; usual. The word “ordinarily” is a derivative of this word (adverb) carrying the same meaning.

(x) The word “ordinarily” therefore would denote developments which are likely to occur, exist or ensue in the regular or normal course of events as logically and rationally anticipated even though not set out or expressed in categorical terms. This is a compendious expression to encompass all events reasonably expected to occur in the usual and common course of occurrences and are expected to so happen unless prohibited, prevented or directed by some express and unexpected interventions to the contrary.

(xi) As adverted to hereinabove, Section 195 of the Code read as a whole unambiguously impose restrictions in the matter of lodgement of complaint qua the offences as mentioned in sub-section (1)(b) thereof in particular and therefore as a corollary, any interpretation for identifying the court/authority/forum contemplated thereby to be competent has to be in furtherance of the restraint and not in casual relaxation thereof. Consequently, therefore the exposition of the provisions of the corresponding substantive law which designs the forums or authorities and confers original and appellant jurisdiction has also to be in aid of the underlying objectives of the restrictions stipulated. Any postulation incompatible with the restrictive connotations would be of mutilative bearing thereon and thus frustrate the purpose thereof, a consequence not approvable in law. To reiterate, Section 195 of the Code clearly carves out an exception to the otherwise conferred jurisdiction on a court under Section 190 to take cognizance of an offence on the basis of the complaints/information from the sources as enumerated therein.

(xii) Viewed in this context, in our estimate, the notification issued under Section 118 of the Act cannot be conceded an overriding effect over the scheme of the statute designating the appellate forums more particularly in absence of any order, circular, notification of any authority thereunder to that effect. The Deputy Director of Income Tax for that matter, as the framework of the Act would reveal, has not been acknowledged to be the appellate forum from any order or the decision of the assessing officer/I.T.O., notwithstanding several other provisions with regard to conferment of various powers and assignments of duties on the said office. In the teeth of such mindful and unequivocal module of the Act, recognition of the Deputy Director of Income Tax to be a forum to whom an appeal would ordinarily lie from any decision or action of the assessing officer/income tax officer would not only be inferential but would also amount to unwarranted judicial legislation by extrinsic additions and doing violence to the language of the law framed. On the contrary, acceptance of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as the forum to which an appeal would ordinarily lie from an order/decision of the assessing officer/I.T.O., would neither be inconsistent with nor repugnant to any other provision of the Act and certainly not incompatible with the legislative scheme thereof. Mere silence in Section 246 of the Act about any decision or order other than those enumerated in sub-section (1) thereof as appealable /decision to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), does not ipso fact spell legislative prohibition in that regard and in our comprehension instead signifies an affirmative dispensation.

(xiii) It is a trite law that there is no presumption that a casus omissus exists and a court should avoid creating a casus omissus where there is none. It is a fundamental rule of interpretation that courts would not feel the gaps in statute, their functions being jus discre non facere i.e. to declare or decide the law. In reiteration of this well-settled exposition, this Court in (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) Union of India and others vs. Dharmendar Textile Processors and others had ruled that it is a well settled principle in law that a court cannot read anything in the statutory provision or a stipulated provision which is plain and unambiguous. It was held that a statute being in edict of the Legislature, the language employed therein is determinative of the legislative intent. It recorded with approval the observation in Stock v. Frank Johns (Tipton) Limited (1978) 1 All ER 948 (HL) that it is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. The observation therein that, rules of interpretation do not permit the courts to do so unless the provision as it stands meaningless or doubtful and that the courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the statute, was underlined. It was proclaimed that a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and that reason for is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose, all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute.

(xiv) More recently this Court amongst others in Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited and Others (2015) 9 SCC 209 had propounded that when the legislative intention is absolutely clear and simple and any omission inter alia either in conferment of power or in the ambit or expanse of any expression used is deliberate and not accidental, filling up of the lacuna as perceived by a judicial interpretative process is impermissible. This was in reiteration of the proposition in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2015) 3 SCC 353 to the effect that casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court in situations where omissions otherwise noticed in a statute or in a provision thereof had been a conscious legislative intendment.

(xv) The judicial formulations on the theme is so consistent and absolute in terms that no further dilation is essential. The scheme of the Act and the legislative design being unreservedly patent in the instant case, that it is plainly impermissible to acknowledge the Deputy Director of Income Tax to be the forum to which an appeal would ordinarily lie from an order/decision of an assessing officer/I.T.O. The present is thus not a case where this Court can premise that the statute suffers from casus omissus so as to recognise the Deputy Director of Income Tax as such an appellate forum.

(xvi) In this persuasive backdrop, the conferment of appellate jurisdiction on the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals from the orders/decisions of the assessing officers as is apparent from Section 246 of the Act, has to be construed as a conscious statutory mandate. This is more so as noticed hereinabove, the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have been otherwise placed at par in the list of income tax authorities provided by Section 116 of the Act. The omission to either vest the Deputy Director of Income Tax with the appellate powers or to contemplate the said post to be an appellate forum from the orders/decisions of the assessing officers cannot thus be accidental or unintended. The relevant provisions of the Act pertaining to the powers, duties and jurisdiction of the various income tax authorities do not leave any room for doubt, in our estimate, to conclude otherwise. True it is, that the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals has been construed in terms of Section 246 of the Act to be an appellate forum from the orders as enumerated in sub-section (1) thereof, but in absence of any provision in the statute nominating the Deputy Director of Income Tax to be an appellate forum for any order/decision of the assessing officer/I.T.O., the inevitable conclusion is that the said authority i.e. Deputy Director of Income Tax cannot be construed to be one before whom an appeal from any order/decision of any income tax authority, lower in rank would ordinarily lie.

(xvii) The Parliament has unmistakably designated the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to be the appellate forum from the orders as enumerated under Section 246(1) of the Act. This however, in our view, as observed hereinabove does not detract from the recognition of this authority to be the appellate forum before whom appeals from the decisions of an assessing officer or of an officer of the same rank thereto would generally and ordinarily lie even in the contingencies not referred to in particular in sub section 1 of Section 246. This is more so, to reiterate, in absence of any provision under the Act envisaging the Deputy Director of Income Tax to be an appellate forum in any eventuality beyond those contemplated in Section 246(1) of the Act. Neither the hierarchy of the income tax authorities as listed in Section 116 of the Act nor in the notification issued under Section 118 thereof, nor their duties, functions, jurisdictions as prescribed by the cognate provisions alluded heretobefore, permit a deduction that in the scheme of the legislation, the Deputy Director of Income Tax has been conceived also to be an appellate forum to which appeals from the orders/decisions of the I.T.Os./assessing officers would ordinarily lie within the meaning of Section 195(4) of the Code. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-I Bhopal, (M.P.), in our unhesitant opinion, therefore cannot be construed to be an authority to whom appeal would ordinarily lie from the decisions/orders of the I.T.Os. involved in the search proceedings in the case in hand so as to empower him to lodge the complaint in view of the restrictive preconditions imposed by Section 195 of the Code. The complaint filed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, (Investigation)-I, Bhopal (M.P.), thus on an overall analysis of the facts of the case and the law involved has to be held as incompetent.

(xviii) The cavil on the competence of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offences alleged, though reduced to an academic exercise, in view of the above determination needs to be dealt with in the passing.

(xix) In Y. Abraham Ajith (supra), the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court in which a complaint had been filed by the respondent No. 2 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, in the face of Sections 177 and 178 of the Code surfaced for scrutiny. The defence raised the plea that as no part of the cause of action constituting the alleged offence had arisen within the jurisdiction of the court before which the complaint had been filed, it lacked competence to entertain the same and conduct the trial following the submission of the charge-sheet. The complaint had disclosed that the allegations levelled therein related to the incident that had happened at her previous place of stay beyond the territorial limits of the court in which it had been filed. This Court after dilating on the scope and purport of Sections 177 and 178 of the Code as well as the judicially expounded connotation of the expression “cause of action” sustained the objection to the maintainability of the complaint. It was noticed that there was no whisper of any allegation relatable to the offences imputed at the place of stay of the complainant where the complaint had been filed. It was thus held that no part of cause of action did arise within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court before which the complaint had been filed and the proceedings resultantly were quashed.

(xx) A similar fact situation obtained in Bhura Ram (supra) also Page 36 36 involving offences under Sections 498A/406/147 IPC. In the attendant facts, it being apparent that no part of the cause of action for the alleged offence had arisen or no part of the offence had been committed within the jurisdiction of the court before which the complaint had been filed, the proceedings were quashed.

(xxi) Both these decisions on territorial jurisdiction, to start with having regard to the facts involved herein are distinguishable and are of no avail to the appellants. As hereinbefore stated, the appellants as assesses, had residences both at Bhopal and Aurangabad and had been submitting their income tax returns at Bhopal. The search operations were conducted simultaneously both at Bhopal and Aurangabad in course whereof allegedly the appellants, in spite of queries made, did not disclose that they in fact did hold a locker located at Aurangabad. They in fact denied to hold any locker, either individually or jointly. The locker, eventually located, though at Aurangabad, has a perceptible co-relation or nexus with the subject matter of assessment and thus the returns filed by the appellants at Bhopal which in turn were within the purview of the search operations. The search conducted simultaneously at Bhopal and Aurangabad has to be construed as a single composite expedition with a common mission. Having regard to the overall facts and the accusation of false statement made about the existence of the locker in such a joint drill, it cannot be deduced that in the singular facts and circumstances, no part of the offence alleged had been committed within the jurisdictional limits of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal.

(xxii) Chapter XIII of the Code sanctions the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquries and trials. Whereas Section 177 of the Code stipulates the ordinary place of inquiry and trial, Section 178 enumerates the places of inquiry or trial. In terms of Section 179, when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. For immediate reference, Sections 177 and 178 are extracted hereinbelow. “177: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial – Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178: Place of inquiry or trial – (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 73. As would be evident from hereinabove, ordinarily every offence ought to be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it had been committed as is mandated by Section 177 of the Code. Section 178, however marks a departure contingent on the eventualities as listed in clauses (a),(b), (c) and (d) of Section 178 to identify the court that would have the jurisdiction to try the offences as contemplated therein.

(xxiii) Though the concept of “cause of action“ identifiable with a civil action is not routinely relevant for the determination of territoriality of criminal courts as had been ruled by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and Another , (2014) 9 SCC 129, their Lordships however were cognizant of the word “ordinarily” used in Section 177 of the Code to acknowledge the exceptions contained in Section 178 thereof. Section 179 also did not elude notice.

(xxiv) Be that as it may, on a cumulative reading of Sections 177, 178 and 179 of the Code in particular and the inbuilt flexibility discernible in the latter two provisions, we are of the comprehension that in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case where to repeat, a single and combine search operation had been undertaken simultaneously both at Bhopal and Aurangabad for the same purpose, the alleged offence can be tried by courts otherwise competent at both the aforementioned places. To confine the jurisdiction within the territorial limits to the court at Aurangabad would amount, in our view, to impermissible and illogical truncation of the ambit of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code. The objection with regard to the competence of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal is hereby rejected. 76. The inevitable consequence of the determination in its entirety however is that the complaint is unsustainable in law having been filed by an authority, incompetent in terms of Section 195 of the Code.

Cases referred:

Kuldip Singh vs. The State of Punjab and Another 1956 SCR 125,
Lalji Haridas vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 1964 (6) SCR 700,
Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. Deputy C.I.T. and Others (2007) 2 SCC 181,
Y. Abraham Ajith and Others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another (2004) 8 SCC 100 and Bhura Ram and others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (2008) 11 SCC 103

2 comments on “Babita Lila vs. UOI (Supreme Court)
  1. I completely agree with the reasoning, after all you cannot truncate the sections 177,178 and 179, so also you cannot confer Appellate status ti deputy commissioners who are not holding appeallate status. Indeed, it is well studied case by the respondent’s advocates, as criminal law itself is itself a separate genre.

    i will quote here how illogically the ‘irrigation’ is managed by states; just because the states think they own the rivers, and all water bodies in their respective states, when all water bodies including rivers are National wealth, that can be distributed by the Nation.

    Again you can see water bodies are products of the clouds in the skies, where they travel from oceans and seas or bays or gulfs, without clouds and rains there can be no water except the underground water which is indeed scanty. But Nation neglected the water bodies formations, as a result there are perpetual troubles year over years, why because politicians are not worried when things are abundant; then suddenly become conscious and try to raise slogans like in cavery river water issues.

    i write my detailed explanation how the politics is played on water…please read below:

    Irrigation has to be attended by any political party, if not no government is worth it. people may recall the governments!
    Irrigation has to be attended as a first priority by any Government is called governance – If not Government is of no use, just a drag on people! By Dr. Guru Balakrishnan PhD., LL.B., M.L. etc
    In 1970s during Smt Indira Gandhi’s time as India’s PM, her Irrigation Mininister in Dr. K.L.Rao rightly suggested to her to ‘connect all rivers’ in India, as India is essentially a great Agriculture country , like Canada, so governments must attend to irrigation as a most priority sector of the economy, just because India is also a most populou country next to China then.
    He added, about 70 % of people live by Agriculture; besides, India needs to be a granary of food grains, more than industry.
    Industry is needed but that should work in tandem with agriculture, like getting agricultural implemements, as the population growth needed ‘food grains’, more than any other food items;
    He added , that Agriculture alone could generate a great job opportunities, in a most modern manner; so that agriculture people need not run to other industries, as other industries cannot provide all employment opportunities, every one in India.
    Jobs might be different; Jobs might be divergent; so too agriculture also needed agricultural engineering, (like in the USA, Canada etc).
    You cannot be complacent with one kind of job opportunities, in fact Agriculture alone can provide a lot of job opportunities like in textile industries, both from illiterates to literates, after all you cannot make all educated persons within a set stipulated time, like in five or ten or twenty years or so; in fact today we have completed six decades plus years, could we say we have educated all; why could you say ‘No Illiterates in India’. Obviously not.
    Education takes decades to sprout in any man; see today we have Em\ngineers, CAs, Lawyers, Medical men etc, could we say all these persons are properly educated ? If you say today educated are properly educated, why then terrible deficiency in their professional competencies?
    For example, we saw few days back mostly every year ‘river water disputes’ where poor people fight their plight , why lawyers the other day go against ‘Apex Court ‘judgement, though these worthies are called so called ‘Court officers’?
    Would you like your employees go against the management? You won’t, just you would say, ‘against discipline’ that way you have ‘S O’ – standing orders in your companies, you would terminate such employees, irrespective of Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 or other Labor laws; you would say employees cannot go on illegal strike, or such things leading to break down of work ethos.
    Other day, TCS, terminated a lady employee, she moved Madras high Court for justice and she insisted the application of labor laws besides ‘Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 be brought in the I T industry; honorable Madras High Court found proper ‘reason’ in her argument, and the honorable court said the I T companies need to follow all Labor laws right from hours of work besides to follow ‘Industrial Disputes Act’; I T industry association Nascom too objected; so for the said ruling is yet to be strictly followed though T N government promulgated the hon Court orders; when so why I T industry is not following in India?
    Corporate has a control on the union government so union government is just silent; why many I T employees elsewhere in India has not moved the hon Apex court for right ruling on the I T industry?
    Just becase, the I T companies threatened the employees of dire consequwnces? Do you think such ‘dire Consequences’ threat by I T industry on such I T employees (so called soft ware engineers – in fact just they are just high skilled workers as in the USA these so called software engineers are treated as just high skilled workers, not called as ‘Software Engineers’, as Indian software industry is just fooling these so called software employees by terming them as ‘Engineers’; Can we fool the employees just like that how long would you just think?
    Coming back to irrigation issue and water resources.
    Politicians just fool people by every means possible.
    Similarly today the politicians are follong the poor agriculturists, by so called agricultural tax benefits, just ensuring ‘ that these poor agriculturists’ would not ask for innovations in water resources management’, un that way , many agriculturists committed suicides for want of irrigation water, see in Marathwada maharashtra, and like that in almost every state of India; and yet no meaningful solution is provided in spite of 6.5 decades are over from the 1950 Indian constitution promulgation.
    Is it really difficult ? Obvously not.
    You know, during ‘Green Revolution’ some reasonable genuine interst was there to protect agriculture and domestic animals like Cows, Buffalows, dogs, cats etc.
    Why that revolution did not take up? Obviously, politicians just dance with their own priorities of short term fast earnings for them.
    You know India has so many perennial rivers, starting from sources like Himalayas, Vindayas, and Easter ghats as also Western ghats, water is mostly wated in the seas or in the gulf or in the bay of Bengal, for so many years after independence, why?
    Reason is there is no Will in the politicians to work out meaningful solutions just because he wants to control agriculture labor a biggest vote bank in the country; how do they control? Just by causing ‘scarcity of irrigation water as also ‘drinking water’ is obvious truth;
    Poor agriculturists are just kept mostly ‘illiterate’; why? Just to see that politicians strangle hold on him should not be lost. For that politicians machinate even ‘suicides’ of agriculturists, for want of irrigation water, usurious loans, banks also isa part in that game thouh you have so called agricultural lending banks, then why he should commot suicide; your politician wants him to commit suicide, to generate some so called ‘public sympathy’ , in fact if your politricians plays ‘Machiavellian politics on the Agriculturists’, you cannot know just because you are equally ‘perepheral’ in your great educational attainments too , just because ,’you avoid ‘Thinking’ why all these dramatics’.
    In fact, you have ‘National High ways development’, a so called Economic development drama; also your politicians say ‘poor need housing’ but most of the houses are built for the well to do only, besides your politicians just convert a lot of lands into NA (non agriculture) in fact ‘you can make it a fertile agricultural land’ why your politicians would not do; just because he wants you to give up lands and become some ‘caravans’ and seek some ‘helper jobs’ in building industry in fact that building industry shares a lot of loot to the politicians like te corporate does provide to the politicians, in fact you really are such ‘wise man’ that you cannot understand or comprehend things, if comprehendable you will not jearing a back lash fr5om politicians.
    Here i have to state, why your politricians did not proceed for so many years on ‘connecting perennial rivers’ since 1970s.though N T Ramarao tried, as CM of AP, but he could not as he was made ineffective during his time in AP, just because he married smt Parvati a brahmin lady, your great Chandra ?Babu Naidu and NTR’s sons opposed his marriage with that lady. And in fact Chandra Babu Naidu is also a similar kind of moderen polticians just to keep control on agriculturists, as the agriculturists form the major vote bank to his party so to any political party;
    All these men like Karunanidhi is also similar kind of politician, so his don Stalin. So also the UP chief Minister Akhilesh Yadhav, or his great father Mulyam singh yadav, who also inherited the charaterisics of V P Singh who played on ‘ Mondal commission’ idea to ensure the poor agriculturists to be swallowed by the so called ‘caste reservation politics’, for the poor agriculturists never understands the politiical machinations, so too you BJP so too the Congressmen so Communists and so on to name few, as all wanted the art of ‘Divide and Rule’ idea of Ramsay MacDonald then PM of Britain who contrived the idea of divide and rule; so you all might know your own politicians are again some great ‘divide and rule’great new architects.
    Problem is agriculturists are just hood winked by the politicians all over in India, by using the river water disputes or causing scarcity of water, when you can really augment water resources if you just think meaningfully, when you say you have so many ‘irrigation engineers’ and other specialists in the country, but you just gag them is the Obvious fact.
    In place of National high ways expenditure you could have spent for connecting the rivers of the country, why your politicians did not?
    They would not. If they do , political parties would just fall as a great pack of cards initially.
    Again, well then, you have such a 3000 miles coast line in the country, with 12 mile territorial waters as your National property, why cannot you put Desalination plants, just for your drinking water purposes, thus allowing the extra water to irrigation or why can’t you get the desalinated water for drinking purposes, while partially desalinated water for other purposes of your so called cities, that means a lot of fresh water would be usesful for the irrigation, after all without irrigation what would you ear Man?
    Again, when at the water is getting into seas at that locations you can divert the water into water harvesting big canals to recycle the wanting water, so that the water can flow back in the same rivers, if you cannot make meaningful big canals like Buckingham canals in the country. Or that recycled water would be easily available for the agriculture and irrigation purposes.
    I think you need ‘sensible really meaningful thinkers’, as your MPs or MLAs, whio need to control all the relevant political parties; Obviously RBI will not give these governments any monetary easing any more as RBI is a better thinking person like the Judiciary, for these institutions never work on ‘divide and rule’ paradox. (ends)

    when you are reading, you will come to know how food is most important to any Nation or any state.

    When so what you talk on national high ways and the like, why you allow farmers commit suicide.. all due to politicking mechanics called ‘Mackiavelism’ we contemplate;

    My view is even the honorable supreme court on suo motu mechanics need to judicially review the irrigation related Acts, and give directions to the Nation to first give priority to food production related economic development, rather than so called buildings, national high ways they may be useful not as immediately as ‘irrigation’ needs .

    I have given non tax issue but it is much superior to taxation as such since about a lack of farmers would not have committed suicide, but for the lackadaisical politicians so called politicking just to divert the attention of people who only pay taxes both directly and indirectly.


    • Rajesh bhardwaj says:

      Sir, I totally agree with you. Hope Hon. SC takes suo motu notice of your letter to avoid water wars, big and small, happening in the country . However, on the issue of jurisdiction of CIT( A) correctly decided by Hon. SC , I have an incident to relate. Way back under pressure from staff associations in Karnataka , Shri R. Parathasarathy, CCIT , Bangalore transferred me from post of DCIT( Admn), Hubli to DCIT( Appeals) , Hubli to humiliate me as in the department the post of DCIT(A) is considered to be on a lower pedestal than DCIT( A). he did not realise that DCIT(A) Hubli would be deciding appeals of a wide area of north Karnataka and some of the appellants in appeals pending before me were his friends who were not very happy to get their appeals decided by me in a fair and just manner. So they again approached Shri R. parathsarathy , CCIT to get appeals transferred to CIT(A) Belgaum but finding no merit in the pressure exerted on me by Shri R. Parathasarathy, CCIT and Shri M.N. Nambiar, CIT, Bangalore to transfer appeals or even in the plea in the course of appeal hearing, I rejected the proposal by them to transfer appeals to CIT( A) Belgaum. My stand was upheld by ITAT and later when disciplinary proceedings initiated against me by S/Sh. Parathasarathy/ Nambiar , CAT also found merit in my petition and quashed illegal proceedings. Correct jurisdiction is the foundation for all subsequent proceedings . Entire edifice will crumble if foundation is weak.

Leave a Reply

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