Piramal Fund Management Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

DATE: March 17, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
Strictures passed against high-handed and unfair approach of AO (IRS Officer) in refusing to give an acknowledgement of stay application. Chief CIT directed to ensure such behaviour is not repeated. Dept directed to nominate another AO to hear stay application

(i) We find this conduct on the part of the Assessing Officer to accept a stay application and not immediately give acknowledgement of its receipt is unacceptable. The least that is expected of a civil servant is to be fair and civil. In the absence of the above, his conduct is not one becoming of an Officer belonging to the prestigious Indian Revenue Service. The least that is expected of an Officer is that when a person files an application / letter, which is accepted by him, an acknowledgement should be forthwith given to the party filing the application or letter. In case he refuses to accept the letter he should endorse on the letter / application the reason why it is not being accepted with a line or two for the refusal to accept. In case he does accept it and give an acknowledgment he can deal with the applications/ letters as is appropriate in accordance with law. We believe that what has happened in this case is an aberration. However, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax would ensure that his Officers do not behave in such an high handed and unfair manner, not expected of civil servants.

(ii) Be that as it may, the stay application is still pending decision. Normally, we would have let the Assessing Officer decide the same. However, looking at the manner in which the petitioner has been dealt with by the Assessing Officer in regard to its stay application dated 17th February, 2016, it would be in the interest of justice that the application for stay filed by the petitioner be heard by another Officer different from the Assessing Officer i.e. respondent no.1 herein. The Officer to deal with the petitioner’s stay application dated 17th July, 2016 is to be selected / nominated by the Revenue.

5 comments on “Piramal Fund Management Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
  1. bobjee kurien says:

    This is not a case in isolation .In Hyderabad too the IT officials are behaving in such a manner they are no acknowledging letters and the inward section is also instructed not to accept the letters
    In the Nizam group of cases the assesees are entitled to hug refund and knowing very well that they are on to the wall they are trying to ward off action by delaying the inevitable.all the authorities in the department is aware of the case and the issues involved . From the assessing officer to the board chairperson.They are holding a lion by the tail!!!!!

  2. manish parekh says:

    To top this atrocious behavior, ALL government employees get pension for life after retiring!! Why Almost all of us at some time or the other have faced such behaviors which is common for the govt employees. Poor middle class toil & toil hard, cut their life’s leisure to save & invest in small funds to take care of their old age. Its time to understand that the rules as they apply to govt employees were designed by the Britishers for their officers as a policy to DRAIN out India’s rich resources whereby they got the draining continued even after they retire. This should have been stopped immediately after Independence. Let those guys also invest part of their income to take care of their old age expenses. Why they should make merry without working at our cost. They are no different – let them be at par with normal Indian Citizen. They cannot continue to be above the normal citizen taking shelter of the old rules designed for Britishers wherein they WANTED to imbibe a inferiority complex in Indians to rule them. How can it be allowed to continue now ?

  3. K.VASANTKUMAR says:

    Because some one took it to High Court it came to light. Otherwise what is happening in Income-tax Department every day is that no letter or for that no petition would be accepted in Inward without the consent of the concerned section or Officer. This is so even with the appellate authorities. The departmental executive is law on to themselves. There is no control over them to ensure that any thing that is submitted should be accepted and acknowledged with due signature and office stamp. One is forced to argue to get a stamp or signature. The normal practice in Hyderabad is that they just put the rubber stamp acknowledging the receipt without any signature. In one case the Hyderabad ITAT observed that any one could get such rubber stamp affixed to demonstrate that a petition is filed and in that particular case they held they do not believe filing of that petition to be genuine and the matter is now in High Court. therefore the practice in the Income-tax department is deplorable. It is high time the department acts by issuing suitable instructions and make it public so that it can be used by them whenever they face a situation where they refuse to accept the tappal that is being filed and they follow a standard procedure of acknowledging the ones that is filed.

    • Rajesh Bhardwaj says:

      Sir, I agree with you that just placing a rubber stamp without signature of receiving official and date of receipt is not legally proper and is liable to misuse and leads to lack of accountability. Income tax department is trying to roll out Aayakar Sewa Kendras (ASK) in all over 700 offices country wide. This may give computerised acknowledgment in all cases . But it will take time. Hon. HC has given the direction and CBDT should follow it without any reservation. All communications to ITD should be properly acknowledged ( as all officers/ officials have been provided name stamps by the department) . What is even more worrying is that replies to statutory notices u/s 142(1)/133(6) are not acknowledged or noted in order sheet and if these get misplaced it may have serious legal/ penal consequences for the tax payers.

  4. vswami says:

    As rightly and fittingly reprimanded by the court, the grievance of taxpayers complained of, so also like or similar utterly bitterly experience of them as a class requires to be taken a serious note of by the CBDT and strict instructions to be issued for unreserved compliance on a day to day basis, with no need for any monitoring or continued surveillance.

    As complained of by a commenting reader, such aberration of varying types faced with in the hands of misguided public servants and high handed action from officers of the government, central and state alike, as has been the cry against for long, deserves to be looked into and suitably tackled ; sooner now, than never.

    More may be added

Leave a Reply

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