- Welcome to itatonline.org Forum.
Recent posts
#1
Discussion / Re: validity of notices u/s 1...
Last post by satyanveshi - May 13, 2026, 08:52:41 PMQuote from: satyanveshi on May 07, 2026, 11:42:06 AMThe retrospective amendment made JAO FAO issue of sec 151A and consequential notification and recent amendment made in sec. 147A was not viewed properly by the stake holders. To start with the newly inserted section is reproduced hereunder..
"147A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, order
or decree of any court or in section 151A or in any scheme framed
thereunder, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the
Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A shall mean
and shall always be deemed to have meant to be an Assessing Officer other
than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit
referred to in sub-section (3) of section 144B.".
A hormonious reading of 151A and the above mentioned 147A, what we understand is....
Issuance notices u/s 148A and 148 are also in Faceless manner through automated allocation... Of course, for both these sections the officer need not be assessment Unit or NafAc... Ok JAO ( or any other officer ) also but what about the restriction imposed in sec 151A....faceless manner and automated allocation.... This restriction enacted by sec 151A is nowhere removed by enacting 147A....
Then what newly inserted 147A really communicates... AO (other than NafAc or AU) is empowered to issue these Notices of 148A and 148 in a faceless manner through automated allocation...
#2
Discussion / Re: validity of notices u/s 1...
Last post by satyanveshi - May 07, 2026, 11:42:06 AMThe retrospective amendment made JAO FAO issue of sec 151A and consequential notification and recent amendment made in sec. 147A was not viewed properly by the stake holders. To start with the newly inserted section is reproduced hereunder..
"147A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, order
or decree of any court or in section 151A or in any scheme framed
thereunder, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the
Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A shall mean
and shall always be deemed to have meant to be an Assessing Officer other
than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit
referred to in sub-section (3) of section 144B.".
A hormonious reading of 151A and the above mentioned 147A, what we understand is....
Issuance notices u/s 148A and 148 are also in Faceless manner through automated allocation... Of course, for both these sections the officer need not be assessment Unit or NafAc... Ok JAO ( or any other officer ) also but what about the restriction imposed in sec 151A....faceless manner and automated allocation.... This restriction enacted by sec 151A is nowhere removed by enacting 147A....
Then what newly inserted 147A really communicates... AO (other than NafAc or AU) is empowered to issue these Notices of 148A and 148 in a faceless manner through automated allocation...
Let us all think whether the enactment served the intended purpose or not....
"147A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, order
or decree of any court or in section 151A or in any scheme framed
thereunder, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the
Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A shall mean
and shall always be deemed to have meant to be an Assessing Officer other
than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit
referred to in sub-section (3) of section 144B.".
A hormonious reading of 151A and the above mentioned 147A, what we understand is....
Issuance notices u/s 148A and 148 are also in Faceless manner through automated allocation... Of course, for both these sections the officer need not be assessment Unit or NafAc... Ok JAO ( or any other officer ) also but what about the restriction imposed in sec 151A....faceless manner and automated allocation.... This restriction enacted by sec 151A is nowhere removed by enacting 147A....
Then what newly inserted 147A really communicates... AO (other than NafAc or AU) is empowered to issue these Notices of 148A and 148 in a faceless manner through automated allocation...
Let us all think whether the enactment served the intended purpose or not....
#3
Discussion / Modi Vs Modi
Last post by Ashish kumar - March 17, 2026, 08:28:59 AMRecently Delhi ITAT has passed an order in the case of Lalit modi, I felt very bad after reading this order of the ITAT. Both members have not at all appreciated that they are deciding the case of a person who insulted India, who ditched the poor and the middle class people of India, who is crusader. The members of the ITAT should not have decided case of such antinational element on technical grounds the Bench has quashed the proceedings on the ground that Yes I am satisfied is not an approval granted with due application of mind ignoring the verdict of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Sonia Gandhi matter. Further they held that since AO has not disposed the objections the 148 proceedings would bad in law, they must have appreciated that in such circumstances the matter may also restored to the file of AO, Hon'ble Apex Court, larger bench way back in Gududhar brothers 40 ITR 200 (SC) has held that an illegality occur during the period of limitation would be irregularity and clock will start runing from that point of proceedings. ITAT must have guts to say that since this matter pertain to one antinational person they are not deciding the legal grounds rather disposing the appeals on merits. But everyone knows that why they decided only because they want to settle their kids in london with the help of crusader. I am going to write strong complaint to the PMO in this regard. Further the Cordinate bench of ITAT in one of the case namely Kamla Devi Vs ITO reported in 21 TTJ 66(Cal) has observed like this One more ground that was taken by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the assessment so made by the ITO was not in accordance with law inasmuch as he did not obtain the prior approval of the IAC. On this point, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that this was not an illegality but an irregularity in view of the decisions : (1) Guduthu Bros. v. ITO (1960) 40 ITR 200 (SC); (2) Estate of Late Ranglal Jajodia v. Commissioner (1971) 79 ITR 505 (SC) and (3) Subramonia Iyer v. Commissioner 1977 CTR (Ker) 12 : (1978) 113 ITR 685 (Ker). The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, considered it proper to restore the matter to file of the ITO for doing the same afresh after complying with the provisions of section 52(1)/52(2) of the Act.Coming to validity of the assessment in the absence of obtaining prior approval of the IAC, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that this was an irregularity and not illegality in view of the decisions mentioned above. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue also.
#4
Discussion / ITAT DELHI MEMBER ACTING AS AG...
Last post by Ashish kumar - March 11, 2026, 04:21:25 PMYes, friends this is true. Recently one former member of the ITAT informed me that one Lady ITAT Member of Delhi Benches is promoting one fraud Chartered Accountant of Delhi. This CA had earlier also in 2015 presented himself as chartered accountant of the then PM shri Manmohan Singh. Then one lawyer having surname Yadav strongly objected to his visits in the chambers of members in 2015. It had been noticed by Mr Yadav that this CA is close friend of one Accountant member of ITAT, who is now retired from ITAT namely T Kapoor. Mr Yadav made a complaint to the then Vice president and the VP Delhi directed the members not to meet this fraud person at all. Friends now in 2025 again this person(CA) has started visiting again the members of the ITAT and this time one lady member of the ITAT is introducing this person with the 2021 batch and 2024 batch members. Upon meeting, this person offer free shopping to the members at famous malls of Delhi NCR and also personate that he is very close to big leaders of BJP Govt. This is very strange type of thing going on in Delhi Benches. President must intervene immediately and take strict action against the member of Delhi Benches who is introducing him with other members of the ITAT, otherwise Jaipur like episode will soon happen in Delhi. All this investigation has been done by one ex member of the ITAT who has now started practice and good man for humanity. So Mr. President sir take some action you know that lady officer very much. Otherwise it will be late for Delhi Benches.
#5
Discussion / Useless decision of Bangalore ...
Last post by Ashish kumar - November 27, 2025, 05:52:31 PMITA number 1734/Bang/2024
"In view of the above facts, we restore the whole issue back to the file of the ld. AO with directions to the assessee to benchmark the outstanding receivable based on currency in which invoices are prepared. Appropriate mark-up thereon or reduction from that interest bank rate would depend upon the risk factors involved in the above transaction which is between the holding company/AE and its subsidiary. The ld. AO thereafter may examine in accordance with the provisions of section 92CA for the determination of ALP of the international transaction and then decided the issue afresh. The assessee is also entitled to raise an issue that if in the international transaction of Software Development Services segment and ITeS segment, working capital adjustment is granted to the assessee, no separate addition is required to be made. Therefore, this aspect is also left to be adjudicated by the ld. AO. In view of these facts, ground No.3 of the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld. AO"
Question is that when the matter is sent back to the AO for deciding afresh then for what reason the hands of the AO are being tide with unnecessary observations. Further on what basis it is held that it is a case of Capital Financing. Further the drafting the language of the order would show the quality of the order.
"In view of the above facts, we restore the whole issue back to the file of the ld. AO with directions to the assessee to benchmark the outstanding receivable based on currency in which invoices are prepared. Appropriate mark-up thereon or reduction from that interest bank rate would depend upon the risk factors involved in the above transaction which is between the holding company/AE and its subsidiary. The ld. AO thereafter may examine in accordance with the provisions of section 92CA for the determination of ALP of the international transaction and then decided the issue afresh. The assessee is also entitled to raise an issue that if in the international transaction of Software Development Services segment and ITeS segment, working capital adjustment is granted to the assessee, no separate addition is required to be made. Therefore, this aspect is also left to be adjudicated by the ld. AO. In view of these facts, ground No.3 of the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld. AO"
Question is that when the matter is sent back to the AO for deciding afresh then for what reason the hands of the AO are being tide with unnecessary observations. Further on what basis it is held that it is a case of Capital Financing. Further the drafting the language of the order would show the quality of the order.
#6
Discussion / Another inconsistence view of ...
Last post by Ashish kumar - November 27, 2025, 11:46:28 AMITA No:- 1499/Hyd/2019- Authored by Manjunatha Accountant Member
"Coming back to case laws relied upon by the ld.DR for the Revenue. The ld.DR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd (supra), We have gone through the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the above case, and we find that, the Tribunal has gone on sole premise of interpretation of statutory provisions in light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company (supra) and held that in case of a person claiming deduction under the provisions of Section 80IA(4), the onus is on the assessee to prove that the assessee has fulfilled all the parameters laid down by the statute for claiming deduction. Since the appellant has not entered into agreement with these Government / statutory authorities, there is a violation as laid down by the statute and the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction. With due respect, we are unable to follow the decision relied upon by the ld.DR for the simple reason that, in the above case, the Tribunal has not discussed whether the appellant is otherwise eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act or not. Secondly, while deciding the issue, the Tribunal has not considered the decision of co-ordinate bench in appellant's own case for earlier years and other decisions rendered by the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a subsequent decision in the case of Government of Kerala and another Vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent in Civil Appeal No.202 of 2012, after considering its earlier decision in case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company (supra) held that the 5-Judge Bench did not refer to line of authority which made a distinction between exemption provisions generally and exemption provisions which have a beneficial purpose. The Court further held that they cannot agree with Shri Gupta's contention that sub-silentio the line of judgments qua beneficial exemptions has been done away with by this 5-Judge Bench. It is well settled that a decision is only an authority for what it decides and not what it matters logically follow from it. This being the case, it is obvious that the beneficial purpose of exemption contained in Section 3(1)(b) must be given full effect to, the line of authority being applicable to the facts of those cases being the line of authority which deals with beneficial exemptions as opposed to exemptions generally in tax statutes. This being the case, a literal formalistic interpretation of the statute at hand should be eschewed. Going by the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, it is undisputedly clear that exemption provisions should be interpreted liberally in order to achieve the objectives of the legislature"
Mr Manjunath has not followed his own view in SEW Infrastructure case and observed as under:- reported in 209 ITD 1(SB)
"32......At this stage, we are taking support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company, (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that beneficial provisions like, deductions exemptions provisions are required to be strictly interpreted and any perceived ambiguity would necessarily ensure to the benefit of the revenue. We further note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of PCIT Vs. Wipro Ltd (supra) has also considered the interpretation of provisions of Section 10B of the Act and held that such an option should be exercised before the due date under Section 139(1) by way of filing a declaration. Although the said decision was in the context of withdrawal of exemption under Section 10B of the Act, in our considered view, when it comes to the interpretation of exemption and deduction provisions, the said provisions should be strictly interpreted so as to achieve the larger intent of the Legislature. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that when the appellant filed its return of income in response to a notice under Section 153A of the Act, it partakes the nature of the return filed under Section 139 of the Act and thus, all the conditions prescribed under Section 80A (5) and Section 80AC are satisfied is contrary to law and devoid of merit and cannot be accepted.
Meaning thereby the Accountant member has not followed his own view and has twisted his own view for the reasons best known to him. He has twisted the interpretation in his own way, so the president of ITAT must ask his explanation & Intelligence agencies must step in
"Coming back to case laws relied upon by the ld.DR for the Revenue. The ld.DR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd (supra), We have gone through the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the above case, and we find that, the Tribunal has gone on sole premise of interpretation of statutory provisions in light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company (supra) and held that in case of a person claiming deduction under the provisions of Section 80IA(4), the onus is on the assessee to prove that the assessee has fulfilled all the parameters laid down by the statute for claiming deduction. Since the appellant has not entered into agreement with these Government / statutory authorities, there is a violation as laid down by the statute and the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction. With due respect, we are unable to follow the decision relied upon by the ld.DR for the simple reason that, in the above case, the Tribunal has not discussed whether the appellant is otherwise eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act or not. Secondly, while deciding the issue, the Tribunal has not considered the decision of co-ordinate bench in appellant's own case for earlier years and other decisions rendered by the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a subsequent decision in the case of Government of Kerala and another Vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent in Civil Appeal No.202 of 2012, after considering its earlier decision in case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company (supra) held that the 5-Judge Bench did not refer to line of authority which made a distinction between exemption provisions generally and exemption provisions which have a beneficial purpose. The Court further held that they cannot agree with Shri Gupta's contention that sub-silentio the line of judgments qua beneficial exemptions has been done away with by this 5-Judge Bench. It is well settled that a decision is only an authority for what it decides and not what it matters logically follow from it. This being the case, it is obvious that the beneficial purpose of exemption contained in Section 3(1)(b) must be given full effect to, the line of authority being applicable to the facts of those cases being the line of authority which deals with beneficial exemptions as opposed to exemptions generally in tax statutes. This being the case, a literal formalistic interpretation of the statute at hand should be eschewed. Going by the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, it is undisputedly clear that exemption provisions should be interpreted liberally in order to achieve the objectives of the legislature"
Mr Manjunath has not followed his own view in SEW Infrastructure case and observed as under:- reported in 209 ITD 1(SB)
"32......At this stage, we are taking support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company, (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that beneficial provisions like, deductions exemptions provisions are required to be strictly interpreted and any perceived ambiguity would necessarily ensure to the benefit of the revenue. We further note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of PCIT Vs. Wipro Ltd (supra) has also considered the interpretation of provisions of Section 10B of the Act and held that such an option should be exercised before the due date under Section 139(1) by way of filing a declaration. Although the said decision was in the context of withdrawal of exemption under Section 10B of the Act, in our considered view, when it comes to the interpretation of exemption and deduction provisions, the said provisions should be strictly interpreted so as to achieve the larger intent of the Legislature. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that when the appellant filed its return of income in response to a notice under Section 153A of the Act, it partakes the nature of the return filed under Section 139 of the Act and thus, all the conditions prescribed under Section 80A (5) and Section 80AC are satisfied is contrary to law and devoid of merit and cannot be accepted.
Meaning thereby the Accountant member has not followed his own view and has twisted his own view for the reasons best known to him. He has twisted the interpretation in his own way, so the president of ITAT must ask his explanation & Intelligence agencies must step in
#7
Discussion / No consistency in the decision...
Last post by Ashish kumar - November 17, 2025, 05:10:28 PMRecently Bangalore Bench of the ITAT has completely overlooked the decision of Mumbai Bench for deciding a big matter in favour of an assessee for the reasons best known to the Bench. The Bench comprising of Vice President of ITAT, who has authored the order has observed as under in ITA Number 60/Bang/2025 vide order dated 04.11.2025.-
"This view is further supported by the Circular No.68 [F.No.245/17/71- A&PC] dated 7.11.1971 wherein it is clarified that a mistake arising as a result of subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme Court would constitute a mistake apparent from the record and rectification application u/s. 154 would be in order. Therefore, it has been decided that when assessee moves an application u/s. 154 pointing out that in the later decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounces the correct legal position, a mistake has occurred, the application shall be acted upon if filed in time. Therefore, in view of the Circular issued by the Income Tax Department, no fault can be found with the order of the ld. CIT(A)"
The above view taken for the benefit of an assessee in a big case is contrary to the judgment of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT wherein the MA of department has been dismissed by the Bench in the case of DCIT Vs ANI Integrated Services MA number 167/ Mum/2023- dated 29.05.2025. Wherein the Coordinate Bench in nutshell has held that subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is not mistake apparent from record and dismissed the revenue's MA for the benefit of assessee.
So in these days the old and claver members are misguiding the revenue and the president and there is no one who can blow a whistle against corruption. Why not a case shall be registered by the CBI against the members for taking contradictory views.
And last but not least the member who has authored the order of the ANI Integrated has also overlooked his own view in the case of Neelkanth Mension in MA number 333/Mum/2023 wherein he has held that subsequent decision of Checkmate is mistake apparent from record. Fantastic work is done by the members of ITAT they should be rewarded on 26th Jan parade by the PMO. Further I am going to file complaints with offices of Agencies.
"This view is further supported by the Circular No.68 [F.No.245/17/71- A&PC] dated 7.11.1971 wherein it is clarified that a mistake arising as a result of subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme Court would constitute a mistake apparent from the record and rectification application u/s. 154 would be in order. Therefore, it has been decided that when assessee moves an application u/s. 154 pointing out that in the later decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounces the correct legal position, a mistake has occurred, the application shall be acted upon if filed in time. Therefore, in view of the Circular issued by the Income Tax Department, no fault can be found with the order of the ld. CIT(A)"
The above view taken for the benefit of an assessee in a big case is contrary to the judgment of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT wherein the MA of department has been dismissed by the Bench in the case of DCIT Vs ANI Integrated Services MA number 167/ Mum/2023- dated 29.05.2025. Wherein the Coordinate Bench in nutshell has held that subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is not mistake apparent from record and dismissed the revenue's MA for the benefit of assessee.
So in these days the old and claver members are misguiding the revenue and the president and there is no one who can blow a whistle against corruption. Why not a case shall be registered by the CBI against the members for taking contradictory views.
And last but not least the member who has authored the order of the ANI Integrated has also overlooked his own view in the case of Neelkanth Mension in MA number 333/Mum/2023 wherein he has held that subsequent decision of Checkmate is mistake apparent from record. Fantastic work is done by the members of ITAT they should be rewarded on 26th Jan parade by the PMO. Further I am going to file complaints with offices of Agencies.
#8
Discussion / Section 114 of Indian Evidence...
Last post by Ashish kumar - August 31, 2025, 10:53:55 AM"I have tolerated you so much": Heated exchange between Judicial Member and Technical Member of NCLT Chandigarh
A lawyer who witnessed the exchange between the two members told Bar and Bench on condition of anonymity that the technical member has had disagreements with the judicial member in open court in the past as well.
https://www.barandbench.com/news/heated-exchange-judicial-member-technical-member-nclt-chandigarh
Recently an interesting news as quoted above has been surfaced in the various newspapers and at the web portal of Bar and Bench. I have heard that in ITAT also so many incidents are happening like recently an order has been passed by one member of Calcutta Bench in the case of Chandan Pradhan. Similarly, so many allegations are levied against junior members of 2024 batch that they are passing dissent orders and not consenting with the views of senior members. So it is very sorry state of affair in these days at the judicial forums, where the public interest writ large. And the sole reason is that personal and vested interest of the senior members is not getting fulfilment due to knowledgeable junior members. The seniors are making false allegations against junior members without knowing that if any matter would reach to any High Court then as per the provisions of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act the presumption would be drawn against the senior member. Supposingly, if any junior member would state before the investigating agency or some other nodal agency or before the High Court that the senior member or VPs of zone are pressurising him to pass favourable judicial order to any of the party then the High Court or any other agency would presume the allegation against the senior member as correct for the simple reason that the Senior is sitting in influential position and hence as per the provisions of section 114 of the Indian Evidence act as well as the various landmark cases decided by the Highest Court of this country, the presumption would go against them and then the burden is on senior to prove otherwise. Being a retried Government Servant it is my duty to spread such knowledge in the society which bring harmony among colleagues.
A lawyer who witnessed the exchange between the two members told Bar and Bench on condition of anonymity that the technical member has had disagreements with the judicial member in open court in the past as well.
https://www.barandbench.com/news/heated-exchange-judicial-member-technical-member-nclt-chandigarh
Recently an interesting news as quoted above has been surfaced in the various newspapers and at the web portal of Bar and Bench. I have heard that in ITAT also so many incidents are happening like recently an order has been passed by one member of Calcutta Bench in the case of Chandan Pradhan. Similarly, so many allegations are levied against junior members of 2024 batch that they are passing dissent orders and not consenting with the views of senior members. So it is very sorry state of affair in these days at the judicial forums, where the public interest writ large. And the sole reason is that personal and vested interest of the senior members is not getting fulfilment due to knowledgeable junior members. The seniors are making false allegations against junior members without knowing that if any matter would reach to any High Court then as per the provisions of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act the presumption would be drawn against the senior member. Supposingly, if any junior member would state before the investigating agency or some other nodal agency or before the High Court that the senior member or VPs of zone are pressurising him to pass favourable judicial order to any of the party then the High Court or any other agency would presume the allegation against the senior member as correct for the simple reason that the Senior is sitting in influential position and hence as per the provisions of section 114 of the Indian Evidence act as well as the various landmark cases decided by the Highest Court of this country, the presumption would go against them and then the burden is on senior to prove otherwise. Being a retried Government Servant it is my duty to spread such knowledge in the society which bring harmony among colleagues.
#9
Discussion / Why TP matters are in a design...
Last post by Ashish kumar - May 13, 2025, 10:13:09 AMIt is observed that Transfer pricing matters are put in separate Benches, at big stations like Delhi and Mumbai it is perfect. However at small stations like Bangalore why there is a separate Bench, and that too not functions many times. Why only one type of members sit is such benches. Why not all the members would sit turn by turn. These inherent corrupt questions are to be made from the respective Vice presidents who have made a separate Bench for TP cases. It is clear cut case of corruption, my words may be harsh but that is a fact, for example at Bangalore station only one type of members are sitting in TP benches why others not been given opportunity to learn TP. When erstwhile VP era was there at Bangalore, TP matters were scattered all over the benches, now one bench is made exclusively and only one type of pair will sit in that bench, this is not justice with other members. Mr President Sir learn some strictness from the then Late Vimal Gandhi jee, who had guts to transfer the non working members in a ziff
#10
Discussion / Facilities to new appointees (...
Last post by Ashish kumar - May 13, 2025, 10:05:55 AMIt is only for the name sake that the new members have rank equivalent to the post of secretary, at ground they don't have any facility for example they don't have any facility of having vehicle on Sunday, despite the fact that they are allowed to use the vehicle for personal purposes. They don't have any helping hand at home, which every govt servant, equivalent to the rank of secretary is having. Similarly so many facilities are not provided to the Members of the ITAT. Still they are working hard, everyone knows the reasons for this type of sacrifice, at some stations they don't have even vehicles for commuting, but still they are working and not quitting the job. At some stations they have vehicles but the vendors and their Driver are so ruthless that they don't follow the terms of the contract i.e. the availability of vehicle for 24 Hrs. Drivers after dropping these laborious members at around 6.30Pm evening run away with the vehicle, violating the mandatory terms of the contracts, no action by the corresponding vice presidents against such vendors, for the reasons best known to them. Why vigilance action should not be taken against the station head if the vendor is not following the terms of the Contract. Mr President Retired justice sahib take strict action against such vice presidents of the ITAT who are insulting Govt of India and not following the terms of contract, otherwise one day you will be in big problem, when law minister will put a note in this regard. Jai Hind