Assessee filing petition seeking adjournment Final assessment order passed without dealing with adjournment petition. On assessee’s writ petition, court staying assessment order. Assessing Officer in affidavit before court stating no adjournment sought by assessee and adjournment petition not updated on Department’s portal. Department levying penalty on assessee ignoring stay granted. Department filing false affidavit so that the writ petition may be dismissed. Penalty and demand orders passed in disregard of the stay order are liable to be quashed. Assessee categorically requested an adjournment up to 11-3-2021. Date for making assessment extended up to 30-4-2021. Assessment order passed on 4-3-2021 without either granting an adjournment or rejecting the request. Court requesting the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Principal Chief Commissioner to inform the court what action they proposed to take to remedy the situation and to prevent future abuse of the process of the court.\u00a0 Principal Commissioner on behalf of Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes filing affidavit detailing changes proposed to mitigate lapses observing that with steps taken by Department as detailed in affidavit, and directions passed by court, administration of Act would be optimised Court directing that in all future actions, Commissioner (Judicial) to be mandatory made party respondent, and was to be solely responsible for implementation of orders of court as representative of Income-tax Department. Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 1 of 2024 dated 9-2-2024. Assessment order quashed.<\/p>\n
\u00a0[The court, to address what it perceived to be a systemic failing of the Income-Tax Department which had resulted in egregious violation of the rule of law, requested the Chairman of Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Principal Chief Commissioner to inform the court what action they proposed to take to remedy the situation and to prevent future abuse of the process of this court as documented. The Principal Commissioner, on behalf of the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, filed an affidavit detailing the changes proposed to mitigate lapses of the kind, forming the subject matter of the proceedings. The court observed that with the steps taken by the Department in consultation with the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, as detailed in the affidavit, and the directions passed by the court, the administration of the provisions of the Act would be optimised to ensure that a powerful engine of our economy can maximise its potential and at the same time remain just and humane to the assessee. The court directed that in all future income-tax petitions (special civil applications and tax appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Judicial) was to be mandatory made a party respondent, and that once the Commissioner of Income-tax (Judicial) was impleaded in the petition, the sole responsibility for implementation of the orders of the court and to follow Instruction No. 1 of 2024 to the hilt, shall be upon him, as a representative of the Income-tax Department.] (AY. 2018-19)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 143(3): Assessment-Assessment order passed in disregard of principles of natural justice and to be quashed-Strictures-Direction to CBDT \u2013False affidavit by the Revenue before High Court-Assessment order quashed-CBDT is directed to take appropriate action. [S.11, 12, 12A(b) R. 17B, Form No. 10B Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":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_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fJC","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60488","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60488"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60488\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60489,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60488\/revisions\/60489"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}