{"id":7862,"date":"2014-04-24T10:36:54","date_gmt":"2014-04-24T05:06:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=7862"},"modified":"2014-04-24T10:36:54","modified_gmt":"2014-04-24T05:06:54","slug":"cit-vs-kisan-ratilal-choksey-share-securities-bombay-high-court-costs-of-rs-1-lakh-levied-on-dept-for-gross-abuse-of-process-of-court-later-revoked-on-assurance-that-judicial-orders-would-be-abi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-kisan-ratilal-choksey-share-securities-bombay-high-court-costs-of-rs-1-lakh-levied-on-dept-for-gross-abuse-of-process-of-court-later-revoked-on-assurance-that-judicial-orders-would-be-abi\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Kisan Ratilal Choksey Share & Securities (Bombay High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (kisan_strictures.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n


\nCosts of Rs. 1 lakh levied on dept for “gross abuse of process of Court<\/em>“. Later revoked on assurance that judicial orders would be abided
\n<\/strong> <\/p>\n

In an unfortunate incident, the department did not point out that its appeal for the earlier years in the case of the same assessee had been dismissed by the High Court. The High Court took a serious view of the matter and levied costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the department while observing:<\/p>\n

“It is unfortunate that the Revenue insists in arguing Appeals in this manner and for subsequent Assessment Years. The Revenue ought to have been fair and brought to the notice of this Court the fact that its Appeal challenging the very findings and conclusions for prior Assessment Years has been dismissed by this Court on merits. The reasons assigned ought to have been pointed out to us and thereafter, any explanation should have been offered for admission of this Appeal \u2026 It is a gross abuse of the process of this Court. It is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000\/ (Rupees One lakh). Costs be paid to the assessee within 4(four) weeks from today<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, later, based on the assurance of the department that hereafter judicial orders and directions would be abided by in all matters, the order on levy of costs was recalled. The Court made it clear that appropriate averments have to be made in the memo of Appeal as to whether the orders of the Tribunal for prior assessment years and in the case of very assessee have been either challenged or otherwise. If the challenge is pending even that statement has to be made and if it is decided, the outcome thereof has to be indicated. <\/p>\n

Note<\/strong>: The CBDT\u2019s detailed Instruction No. 7 \/2011 dated 24.5.2011<\/a> covers all these aspects. Practice Note No. 7<\/a> (pdf) issued by the Bombay High Court also covers these aspects. See also Kirloskar Oil Engines<\/a><\/strong> where the department was given a “last opportunity<\/em>” and warned of “heavy costs<\/em>” for wasting judicial time<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"


\nCosts of Rs. 1 lakh levied on dept for “gross abuse of process of Court<\/em>“. Later revoked on assurance that judicial orders would be abided
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is unfortunate that the Revenue insists in arguing Appeals in this manner and for subsequent Assessment Years. The Revenue ought to have been fair and brought to the notice of this Court the fact that its Appeal challenging the very findings and conclusions for prior Assessment Years has been dismissed by this Court on merits. The reasons assigned ought to have been pointed out to us and thereafter, any explanation should have been offered for admission of this Appeal \u2026 It is a gross abuse of the process of this Court. It is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000\/ (Rupees One lakh). Costs be paid to the assessee within 4(four) weeks from today<\/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-7862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7862","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=7862"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7862\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}