{"id":11676,"date":"2015-10-13T10:01:57","date_gmt":"2015-10-13T04:31:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=11676"},"modified":"2015-10-13T10:01:57","modified_gmt":"2015-10-13T04:31:57","slug":"arun-ganesh-jogdeo-vs-uoi-bombay-high-court-dept-directed-to-follow-directions-of-delhi-high-court-in-352-itr-273-and-to-be-vigilant-and-ensure-that-such-mistakes-do-not-occur-dept-directed-to-set-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/arun-ganesh-jogdeo-vs-uoi-bombay-high-court-dept-directed-to-follow-directions-of-delhi-high-court-in-352-itr-273-and-to-be-vigilant-and-ensure-that-such-mistakes-do-not-occur-dept-directed-to-set-up\/","title":{"rendered":"Arun Ganesh Jogdeo vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Petitioner filed a PIL to bring out the irregularities committed by the Income Tax Department. It was submitted that the Delhi High Court has also passed the strictures against the Income Tax Department in a similar Petition, which was filed in the Delhi High Court and which was disposed of by the order dated 14th March, 2013 (Court On Its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income-tax<\/a> 352 ITR 273). The Petitioner has invited attention to the said Judgment and Order passed by the Delhi High Court and took the Court through the various alleged mistakes committed by the Income Tax Department in issuing incorrect notices under Sections 244 and 245 of the Income Tax Act, thereby seeking recovery from number of income tax assessees. He brought to the Court\u2019s notice the immense hardships caused to all these income tax assessees as a result of the alleged mistakes committed by the Income Tax Department. It is submitted that the initial returns, which were taken by the Income Tax Department, were due to a technical error, which is rectified. It was alleged that there was a bug in the computer system. According to the Petitioner, this has been done deliberately. In reply, the department submitted that the directions given by the Delhi High Court have been followed in letter and spirit. HELD by the High Court: <\/p>\n

The Income Tax authorities shall follow the directions given by the Delhi High Court in case of Court On Its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income-tax<\/a> 352 ITR 273 in other cities, including the city of Mumbai, in Maharashtra State. We hope and trust that the Income Tax Department will be more vigilant and ensure that such mistakes will not occur in future. We also direct the Income Tax Department to form a Vigilance Cell to ensure that there is a monitoring authority, which would monitor various policy decisions which are taken and a self auditing mechanism is required to be formulated to ensure that the income tax assessees are not made to run from pillar to post for the purpose of redressal of their grievances.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Income Tax authorities shall follow the directions given by the Delhi High Court in case of Court On Its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income-tax 352 ITR 273 in other cities, including the city of Mumbai, in Maharashtra State. We hope and trust that the Income Tax Department will be more vigilant and ensure that such mistakes will not occur in future. We also direct the Income Tax Department to form a Vigilance Cell to ensure that there is a monitoring authority, which would monitor various policy decisions which are taken and a self auditing mechanism is required to be formulated to ensure that the income tax assessees are not made to run from pillar to post for the purpose of redressal of their grievances<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11676","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court","judges-dr-shalini-phansalkar-joshi-j","judges-v-m-kanade-j","section-39","section-835","counsel-arun-ganesh-jogdeo","court-bombay-high-court","catchwords-strictures","catchwords-tds-credit","genre-domestic-tax"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11676","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11676"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11676\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11676"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11676"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11676"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}