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 › CIT vs. Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (Supreme Court)

CIT vs. Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 27, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 1, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
We are shocked that the UOI through the CIT has taken the matter so casually. The petitioners have given a totally misleading statement before this Court. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10 lacs to be paid (by the exchequer)

ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.3 SECTION XI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 26127/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-08-2016
in ITA No. 657/2007 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GHAZIABAD Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

HAPUR PILKHUWA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent(s)

(FOR I.R. and IA No.115842/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING )

Date : 27-08-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, Adv.

Mr. Debashish Bharukha, Adv.

Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

This petition for special to leave has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad.

First of all this petition has been filed after a delay of 596 days. There is an inadequate and unconvincing explanation given for the delay in filing the petition.

Secondly, it is mentioned in the proforma for first listing that a similar matter being C.A. No. 7096/2012 is pending in this Court. However, the office has given a report stating that C.A. No. 7096/2012 was decided by this Court as far back as on 27.09.2012. In other words, the petitioners have given a totally misleading statement before this Court.

We are shocked that the Union of India through the Commissioner of Income Tax has taken the matter so casually.

As we have noted, there is an inadequate explanation of delay of 596 days in filing the petition and a misleading statement about pendency of a similar civil appeal.

Under the circumstances, we dismiss the petition with costs of Rs.10 lacs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. The amount be utilized for juvenile justice issues.

List the matter for compliance after four weeks.

(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (KAILASH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Note: In M/s Overseas Enterprises vs. UOI (Patna High Court), the law on public accountability has been explained. It was held that costs should be recovered from the salaries of the defaulting officials and not from the Government fund. See also ACIT vs. Epson India Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court)

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Krishan K. Aggarwal (Supreme Court) 

    We are extremely unhappy with the delay of 3381 days in refiling the special leave petition but make no other comment. The concerned authorities need to wake up.Read more ›
  2. State Of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav (Supreme Court) 

    Judicial discipline requires that such a blatant contradiction in such an important matter should have been avoided. The order passed in the case of Dr. R.K. Rana was on sound basis and though the court had noted that there was some overlapping of facts but the offences were different,…
  3. Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court) 

    To say the least, this is an extremely unfortunate situation of unnecessary and avoidable burdening of this Court through frivolous litigation which calls for yet another reminder through the imposition of costs on the Union of India while dismissing this appeal. We hope that someday some sense, if not…
  4. CCE vs. Vansum Industries (Bombay High Court) 

    While filing a cryptic affidavit in support, initially we had observed that the Commissioner and his officials are playing a blame game. To cover up their lapses and deficiencies, they turned around and blamed their Advocates. They are of the opinion that their Advocates ought to inform them and…
  5. Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Thus, we find that the Tribunal, out of sheer desperation and frustration and agitated by the fact that the Revenue is not opposing the request for condonation of delay, turned its attention towards the assessee’s Chartered Accountant. It is unfortunate that thereafter paragraphs after paragraphs are devoted to how…
2 comments on “CIT vs. Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (Supreme Court)”
  1. vswami says:
    September 3, 2018 at 4:18 pm

    Sporadic (Reaction based on pure common sense !)

    “Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10 lacs to be paid (BY THE EXCHEQUER)” (FONT to focus)

    Why so by the Exchequer (?) ; which means it is to be borne out of taxpayers’ monies? Should not the levy and collection be from the ‘public servant (s)’, found guilty , personally, or be recovered from the so-found-guilty,so as to really serve the intended objective of meting out the deterrent punishment for the dereliction in performance of the individual(s)’duties of office ?
    tax

  2. Ashwani Joshi says:
    September 3, 2018 at 9:40 pm

    Well Done. Its because of Inefficient, corrupt and …..you understand assessing officers.

Discover more from itatonline.org

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading