{"id":19320,"date":"2018-09-03T13:17:09","date_gmt":"2018-09-03T07:47:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=19320"},"modified":"2018-09-03T13:17:09","modified_gmt":"2018-09-03T07:47:09","slug":"pcit-vs-international-biotech-park-ltd-bombay-high-court-international-biotech-the-revenue-has-been-selective-in-its-approach-it-picks-either-the-assessee-or-the-ays-pertaining-to-that-assessee-for-c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/pcit-vs-international-biotech-park-ltd-bombay-high-court-international-biotech-the-revenue-has-been-selective-in-its-approach-it-picks-either-the-assessee-or-the-ays-pertaining-to-that-assessee-for-c\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT vs. International  Biotech Park Ltd (Bombay High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><em>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<p><strong><em>ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<p><strong><em>INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.370 OF 2016<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The  Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-14 &hellip; Appellant <\/p>\n<p>Vs <\/p>\n<p>International  Biotech Park Ltd. &#8230; Respondent<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Suresh  Kumar for the Appellant.<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Niraj  Seth a\/w Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>CORAM : S.C. <\/em><\/strong><strong><em>DHA<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>RMADHIKARI &amp;<\/em><\/strong> <strong><em>B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><em>THURSDAY,   23RD AUGUST , 2018<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><em>P.C. :<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1  Mr.Suresh Kumar, during the course of his    argument  stated that in the impugned order, the Tribunal has    followed  its view for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 and    applied  it for the Assessment Year under consideration,    namely,  2010-2011.<\/p>\n<p>2  Mr.Suresh Kumar fairly says that Income Tax Appeal    (L)  No.199 of 2015 for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 was    filed  in this Court on 17th   February 2015.<\/p>\n<p>3  Though the Registry reminded the    Department\/Revenue  that it should attend the matter and    remove  all office objections, none attended it. The result is    that  on 9th   July 2015, the Appeal stood  rejected for noncompliance    of  the Bombay  High Court (Original Side) Rules,    1980.<\/p>\n<p>4  Mr.Suresh Kumar submits that the larger public    interest  would suffer grossly in the event we do not allow him    to  point out the legal errors in the order passed by the    Tribunal  for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. That order has    been  followed in the Assessment Year under consideration and    that  would enable the Tribunal to go on following the said    order  for subsequent years. <\/p>\n<p>Though  the principle of resjudicata    is  not applicable to the Revenue\/Tax proceedings, but    the  rule of consistency would be invoked is the apprehension    of  Mr.Suresh Kumar. <\/p>\n<p>Though  we accede to his request and    bring  that Appeal as well and would hear Mr.Suresh Kumar on    that  Appeal, it is for the purposes of our Registry taken to be    rejected.  Still we have a word or more to say about this    conduct  of the Revenue.<\/p>\n<p>5  On numerous occasions, this Court has brought to    the  notice of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,    Government  of India  through the Commissionerates that the    Revenue  has been selective in its approach. <\/p>\n<p>It  picks either the    assessee  or the assessment years pertaining to that assessee    for  challenging the orders in relation to them, before the    higher  forums. <\/p>\n<p>This  results in revenue leakage or    perpetuation  of wrongs affecting adversely the collection of    revenue.  The public at large is at a loss to understand as to    why  the Department\/Revenue consistently loses the battle in    the  higher Courts. This could be then termed as a deliberate    or  intentional act.<\/p>\n<p>6  If the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,    Government  of India  is going to conveniently overlook this and    not  bring the guilty persons to book by initiating disciplinary    measures  against them, then, no purpose will be served at all.<\/p>\n<p>We  know that the Appeal for the prior Assessment Year may    not  be properly drafted or does not contain the relevant    details,  much less the precise question of law and if that is    dismissed,  there will be definitely an impact on the Appeal    relating  to the Assessment Year under consideration. <\/p>\n<p>Hence,    this  is not a short term exercise, but a major surgery which    will  have to be performed. If the Revenue Officials are    prepared  to take some bold decisions, then, only these state    of  affairs will improve and not otherwise.<\/p>\n<p>7  Purely to accommodate Mr.Suresh Kumar, we post    both  these matters on 5th   September 2018. The cases be    listed  as Part Heard.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>B.P .C<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>OLAB<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>AWA<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>LLA, <\/em><\/strong><strong><em>J.<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>S.C.<\/em><\/strong><strong><em> DHARMADHIKARI, J.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On numerous occasions, this Court has brought to the notice of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India through the Commissionerates that the Revenue has been selective in its approach.It picks either the assessee or the assessment years pertaining to that assessee for challenging the orders in relation to them, before the higher forums.This results in revenue leakage or perpetuation of wrongs affecting adversely the collection of revenue. The public at large is at a loss to understand as to why the Department\/Revenue consistently loses the battle in the higher Courts. This could be then termed as a deliberate or intentional act.6 If the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India is going to conveniently overlook this and not bring the guilty persons to book by initiating disciplinary measures against them, then, no purpose will be served at all.We know that the Appeal for the prior Assessment Year may not be properly drafted or does not contain the relevant details, much less the precise question of law and if that is dismissed, there will be definitely an impact on the Appeal relating to the Assessment Year under consideration.Hence, this is not a short term exercise, but a major surgery which will have to be performed. If the Revenue Officials are prepared to take some bold decisions, then, only these state of affairs will improve and not otherwise<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/pcit-vs-international-biotech-park-ltd-bombay-high-court-international-biotech-the-revenue-has-been-selective-in-its-approach-it-picks-either-the-assessee-or-the-ays-pertaining-to-that-assessee-for-c\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/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":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19320","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court","judges-b-p-colabawalla-j","judges-s-c-dharmadhikari-j","section-260a","counsel-niraj-sheth","court-bombay-high-court","catchwords-strictures","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\/19320","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=19320"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19320\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}