| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
June 9, 2011 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
AO directed to pay costs for “recovery harassment”
The assessee, a credit co-operative society, contravened s. 269SS & 269T because of which penalty u/s 271E was levied. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty. Before service of the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee’s bank account was attached u/s 226(3). The assessee filed a stay application and claimed that as the assessee had to bear costs owing to the illegal action of the AO, costs had to be awarded to it. HELD upholding the assessee’s plea:
The AO’s order of attaching the bank account of the assessee even before the service of the CIT(A)’s order was wrong in view of (a) the CBDT’s letter dated 25.3.2004 advising that penalties u/s 271-D & 271-E for violation of s. 269-SS & 269-T should not be indiscriminately imposed without considering s. 273-B, (b) the CCIT’s direction that demand arising out of penalties imposed u/s 271-D & 271-E should be stayed in cases of co-operative credit societies, (c) UOI v/s Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammed AIR 2005 SC 4383 where concern was expressed over dangerous attitude developing amongst Executive resulting in institutional damage & (d) KEC Interntional Ltd 251 ITR 158 (Bom) where it was held that generally coercive measures may not be adopted during the period provided by the Statute to go in appeal. Accordingly, the assessee was unnecessarily subjected to harassment by the actions of the lower authorities. It is thus a fit case for imposing costs u/s 254(2B) on the Revenue to compensate the harassment caused by the officers of the Revenue at fault.
See also
In Re Rajendra Singh (BHRC) where compensation was awarded for “human rights violation” in search action
Related Posts:
- Technimont Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The effect of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) thus was clearly overruled by the legislative developments. It was specifically legislated that the mere fact of taxability in the treaty partner jurisdiction will not take it out of the ambit of taxable income of…
- Kamal Galani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is the case of the Ld. AO that account with HSBC bank , Geneva is opened by resident Indian and black money earned by such resident Indian has been stashed abroad without paying taxes/disclosing income in India. But, fact remains that in the instant case, the account was opened…
- Bank Of India vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, our entire focus was on whether these foreign tax credits could be allowed even when such tax credits lead to a situation in which taxes paid abroad could be refunded in India, but that must not be construed to mean that, as a corollary to our…
- Pandhes Infracon Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) As all of us are traversing through one of the toughest patch of time, facing the Covid 19 pandemic, and the poorer sections of society are hardest hit. It is, therefore, all the more necessary for every employer company to take care of its employees. We find that in view…
- Bank of India vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The effect of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Kulandagan Chettiar (267 ITR 654) that income taxable in the source jurisdiction under the treaty provisions cannot be included in total income of the assessee is clearly overruled by the legislative developments. It is specifically legislated that the mere fact of taxability…
- Sanjay Duggal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In our considered and humble opinion, no procedure for grant of approval has been provided u/s.153D of the Act and the Income tax Rules, 1962. However, when legislature has enacted some provision to be exercised by a higher revenue authority enabling the AO to pass assessment or reassessment orders in…
IN LINE WITH THE RATIONALE BEHIND IN THE HC CASE (BHRC), ONE IS PROVOKED TO LOUDLY WONDER,- WHETHER, IN ALL SUCH CASES OF GROSS NEGILIGENCE, SHOULD NOT THE ‘COSTS’ BE IMPOSED ON THE ERRING OFFICERS, AND COLLECTED FROM THEIR PERSONAL ACCOUNTS,- NOT ON THE ‘REVENUE’- FOR THEN IT WOULD GET PAID OUT OF THE ‘PUBLIC MONIES’ FOR NO FAULT OF THE ‘PUBLIC’ AT ALL!
I think there should not be any provision for recovery till the case is decided in appeal. Only in exceptional cases where amount payable is Rs. 1 crore or more there should be provisional attachment or the assessees can be asked to provide security for atleast 50% of amount involved. This will eliminate harrassment due to recovery for a large number of tax payers.