{"id":20340,"date":"2019-03-25T13:54:46","date_gmt":"2019-03-25T08:24:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=20340"},"modified":"2019-03-25T14:18:41","modified_gmt":"2019-03-25T08:48:41","slug":"the-chamber-of-tax-consultants-vs-cbdt-bombay-high-court-s-250-the-cbdt-should-reconsider-the-direction-in-the-central-action-plan-of-offering-incentives-to-csita-to-enhance-assessments-and-levy-p","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/the-chamber-of-tax-consultants-vs-cbdt-bombay-high-court-s-250-the-cbdt-should-reconsider-the-direction-in-the-central-action-plan-of-offering-incentives-to-csita-to-enhance-assessments-and-levy-p\/","title":{"rendered":"The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT (Bombay High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"
See also: Top Tax Professionals Slam CBDT For \u201cIncentive\u201d To CsIT(A) To \u201cEnhance Assessments\u201d| Legal Action Threatened<\/a> <\/div>\n

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
\nORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
\nWRIT PETITION NO.3343 OF 2018
\nThe Chamber of Tax Consultants & Anr. ] … Petitioners
\nVersus
\nThe Central Board of Direct Taxes ]
\nDept. of Revenue & Anr. ] \u2026 Respondents
\nMr. S. E. Dastur, Senior Advocate a\/w Mr. Vipul Joshi, Mr. Harsh
\nKothari, Mr. Abhishek Padwalkar & Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi for
\nPetitioners.
\nMr. Anil Singh, ASG, a\/w Mr. Sham V. Walve for Respondent No.1.
\nALONG WITH
\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
\nPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.144 OF 2018
\nACELEGAL & Anr. ] … Petitioners
\nVersus
\nUnion of India & Anr. ] \u2026 Respondents
\nMs. Ritika Agarwal a\/w Ms. Deepti Jethva or Petitioners.
\nMr. Anil Singh, ASG, a\/w Mr. Sham V. Walve for Respondent No.2.
\nURS 1 of 4
\n::: Uploaded on – 25\/03\/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 25\/03\/2019 13:11:18 :::
\n2 902 & 901WP
\n334318
\n@ PIL 14418.
\nodt
\nCORAM :AKIL
\nKURESHI &
\nSARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
\nDATE :22
\nMARCH, 2019
\nP. C. :1.
\nThese Petitions involve similar issues. The Petitioners
\nhave challenged certain portion of the central action plan formulatedby the Central Board of Direct Taxes<\/a> (\u2018CBDT\u2019, for short). This
\ndocument contains Chapter 3 pertaining to litigation management.
\nThis Chapter provides the target for Appeals to be disposed by the
\nAppellate Commissioner in expeditious manner. The clauses
\ncontained in this Chapter lay down targets and norms to be achieved
\nwithin certain time.
\n2. The challenge of the Petitioners is in two parts. In the first
\npart, the Petitioners have challenged the directions issued by the
\nCBDT for disposal of certain number of Appeals of specified categories
\nwithin specified time. According to the Petitioners, these time limits
\nare artificially applied, are contrary to the statutory provisions and
\nalso have the effect of making hurried orders by the Appellate
\nCommissioner.<\/p>\n

3. The Petitioners\u2019 second part of the challenge is to the
\nfollowing portion of the said Chapter :
\n\u201cIncentive for quality orders :
\n(i) With a view to encourage quality work by CITs
\n(A),additional credit of 2 units shall be allowed for
\neach quality appellate order passed. The CIT (A) may
\nclaim such credit by reporting such orders in their
\nmonthly DO letter to the CCIT concerned. Quality
\ncases would include cases where (
\na) enhancement has been made,
\n(b) order has been strengthened, in the opinion of the
\nCCID, and
\n(c) penalty u\/s 271(1) has been levied by the CIT (A).\u201d
\n4. With respect to the first part, we are primafacie
\nof the
\nopinion that the target set by the CBDT for disposal of the Appeals
\nwithin the timeframe
\nprovided, are directory and not mandatory.
\nPrimafacie,
\nwe also feel that it may not be impermissible for the
\nCBDT to prioritize the disposal of the Appeals and to set the goals for
\ndisposal of certain number of such Appeals by the Appellate
\nCommissioner.
\n5. With respect to the Petitioners\u2019 second part of the
\nchallenge, we are of the opinion that the CBDT should reconsider the
\nsame. From the action plan, it is not clear as to the utility of the
\nURS 3 of 4
\n::: Uploaded on – 25\/03\/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 25\/03\/2019 13:11:18 :::
\n4 902 & 901WP
\n334318
\n@ PIL 14418.
\nodt
\nnorms set which the Commissioner has to achieve. If the purpose of
\nsetting of norms is to evaluate the performance of the Commissioner,
\nthere would be all the more reason why the abovequoted
\nportion of
\nthe action plan be reconsidered by the CBDT.
\n6. On the next date of hearing, the learned Counsel for the
\nRespondent would apprise us about the utility of the norms that the
\nCommissioner would need to achieve and the outcome of the CBDT\u2019s
\ndeliberations on our recommendation for reconsideration.
\n7. Stand over to 11\/04\/2019.
\n(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)
\nURS 4 of 4
\n::: Uploaded on – 25\/03\/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 25\/03\/2019 13:11:18 :::<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

With respect to the Petitioners\u2019 second part of the challenge, we are of the opinion that the CBDT should reconsider the same. From the action plan, it is not clear as to the utility of the norms set which the Commissioner has to achieve. If the purpose of setting of norms is to evaluate the performance of the Commissioner, there would be all the more reason why the above quoted portion of the action plan be reconsidered by the CBDT<\/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-20340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court","judges-akil-kureshi-j","judges-sarang-v-kotwal-j","section-533","counsel-abhishek-padwalkar","counsel-dharan-gandhi","counsel-harsh-kothari","counsel-s-e-dastur","counsel-vipul-joshi","court-bombay-high-court","catchwords-enhancement","catchwords-penalty","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\/20340","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=20340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20340\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}