Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 20, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 9, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Court records sincere appreciation for the proactive and sensitive manner in which the CIT has intervened to ensure that injustice caused to the party is addressed. His expression of regret for the inconvenience caused to the Petitioner for acts of his department is gracious and a very commendable and fair gesture, which is rarely noticed on the part of the Revenue. If such conduct would became the norm, the department itself would gain as the fairness in dealing with an assessee would automatically result in greater compliance of the laws by the tax payer. This secure in the belief the tax department would be fair and not treat the assessee as its enemy/adversary

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Senior Citizen of 82 years of age. This Petition, challenges the orders dated 22nd February, 2012 and 4th October, 2017 passed by the Assessing Officer, rejecting the Petitioner’s application for rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Petitioner by its application dated 24th May, 2000 sought rectification of the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, for Assessment Year 199798.

2 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax22 – Mr. Sachchidanand Srivastav has filed an affidavit dated 19th April, 2018. From the affidavit, it is clear that he has taken stock of the facts arising in this Petition. The affidavit very fairly states that in view of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) along with the material available on record, it is clear that the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the rectification application in respect of Assessment Year 199798.

The Commissioner of Income Tax has in his affidavit assured us that the issue would be resolved promptly and the refund along with interest thereon in accordance with the provisions of law, shall be granted to the PetitionerAssesssee, preferably within the period of six weeks from today. The affidavit also record the regret on the part of the Revenue for the inconvenience caused to the PetitionerAssesse.

3 In the above view, the impugned orders dated 22nd February, 2012 and 4th October, 2017, are quashed and set aside.

4 Before parting, we would like to place on record our sincere appreciation for the proactive and sensitive manner in which the Commissioner of Income Tax – Mr. Sachchidanand Srivastava has intervened to ensure that injustice caused to the party is addressed.

Moreover, very graciously he places on record his regrets for the inconvenience caused to the Petitioner for acts of his department. This, indeed, is a very commendable and fair gesture, which is rarely noticed on the part of the Revenue. All we can say if such conduct would became the norm, the department itself would gain as the fairness in dealing with an assessee would automatically result in greater compliance of the laws by the tax payer. This secure in the belief the tax department would be fair and not treat the assessee as its enemy/adversary.

6 comments on “Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  1. congrats satchitananand srivasthava, revenue ought to learn a lot from him why even ministers of finance why even prime ministers. if they learn then there is some sense in governance .see immanuel kant says religion without absolute morality is big nothing but most irreligious thought , that way people will fail to accept religions.

  2. vswami says:

    Instant:

    Makes for a welcome change ; more heartening is the fact that the judiciary has seized the rarest opportunity to-come-by, and have had a few words of commendation to say , -nay the ideal direction to follow- for the betterment of the plethora of detestable common experience, widely obtaining in the administration of the tax laws.

  3. sukumar says:

    Why the ITO shall not be punished for his action Sir ?
    In the fag end of FY 2017-18 Assessing Officers has passed high pitched Assessment order raising huge demand which are bad in law,with out any application of mind and forced the Assesse to pay @ 20% of the demand,even if appeal filed, as per CBDT circular.Karnataka High court ruling ignored .
    Such action do not convey clean message.

  4. N. Devanathan says:

    The AO has suo moto power to rectify.
    In this connection it is pertinent to observe the findings of the Madras High Court
    In the case of M/s. Craftsman Automation P Ltd. In Tax Case Appeal No.1177 of 2005 regarding the powers of the assessing officer which is reproduced as below:

    8. The types of mistakes that could be rectified under Section 154 are also two fold. While Sub-section (1) uses the expression “any mistake apparent from the records”, Sub-section (2) uses the expression “rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice”. In other words, the type of mistake that Sub-section (1) deals with is different from the type of mistake that clause (b) of Sub-section (2) deals with. While Sub-section (1) deals with a mistake apparent from the record, clause (b) of Sub-section (2) deals with a mistake that is brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer by the assessee. The word “such” used in clause (b) of Sub-section (2) is actually not in ejusdem generis with Sub-section (1), but it goes along with what follows in clause (b) itself, namely “mistake which has been brought to its notice”. Therefore, the thinking in the mind of the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal that Section 154 is available only to correct a mistake apparent from the record, may not be in tune with the Scheme of Sub-section (2) of Section 154.

  5. N. Devanathan says:

    The shome committee (TARC) in its report opinied that the assessee should be treated as “Customer” unfortunately the report is put into useless lumber

  6. V S says:

    The High Court has applauded the efforts taken by the CIT to show gesture. It is indeed nice to read and we join hands to praise the tax department whenever and wherever needed. The age-old slogan that ITO is your friend needs lots of advertisements in the context of faceless assessments.
    The encomiums passed by the Judiciary are a step in the right direction for after all the tax litigation is not a lis in the real sense of the word.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*