Hon’ble Sushil Chandra, who has been recently appointed as the Chairman of the CBDT, has got off to a flying start. He has issued a detailed communiqué to the Income-tax department in which he has set out the road map that has to be followed over the next six months.
The learned Chairman has emphasized that one of the priorities is “Maximising revenue collection”. It is stated that “Every possible step needs to be taken for not only achieving the budget collection targets but also exceeding the same”. It is also stated that the priority is on “Delivering quality tax payer services”. It is emphasized that not only should the grievances be redressed quickly but the reasons for the grievance should be analyzed and removed from the root.
Several other clear-cut action points have been identified.
At the end, the learned Chairman has promised that he will work to live up to the expectations of the Government and the Nation.
We wish the new CBDT Chairman good luck in his post.
Looking not far back- albeit ‘human memory ‘ is, as ordained by nature, generally short –lived >
http://itatonline.org/…/no-harassment-or-high-handed-behav…/
http://itatonline.org/…/new-cbdt-chief-reveals-game-plan-o…/
As said then, the right emphasis laid was on the priority of “Delivering quality tax payer services”.
Howver, The reported fresh move, being contested, to say the least, is in a reverse direction; is tantamount to a serious ‘self-contradiction’ and detestable ‘rollback’ of the above referred earlier moves, – commended to be in the right direction. In substance, the illogical faulty move makes for a drastic paradigm shift /change, across the board, with priority to ‘quantity’ (in effect, high -pitched assessments) as opposed to ‘quality’ (assessments strictly in accordance with both ‘letter’ and ‘spirit’ of ‘the law’.
As regards exercise by an appellate authority’s of ‘discretion’ in disposal of an appeal, that again is not an unbridled power; but might have to ideally stand the judicial standards of ‘independence’ and ‘objectivity’.
Same way as, in relation to the first stage, being ‘assessment’ , authored by the lowly AO, the said standards might have to be observed. For independent thoughts and viewpoints shared, and some suggestions made, if so care, refer the Article (2008) 169 TAXMAN 14 (ART) – paragraph 2.1 is of relevance .
Appointment of tax tribunal member should be from CAs and lawyers having knowledge of the tax either from service or from practice
The Chairmanship of CBDT and CBEC should not be given to the officers from the respective department and similarly the officers of the department should not be appointed to the Tribunals. Retired High Court or Supreme Court Justices should be appointed as Chairman while the Tribunals should be manned by only eminent advocates. This is mainly because most of the lower officials has dealt with the seniors who are appointed as Chairman and Members of the Boards. Their credentals are known to a good number of officers and hence it will be difficult for the Chairman to enforce transparency and clean the department of corruption.
The Chairmanship of CBDT and CBEC should not be given to the officers from the respective department and similarly the officers of the department should not be appointed to the Tribunals. Retired High Court or Supreme Court Justices should be appointed as Chairman while the Tribunals should be manned by only eminent advocates. This is mainly because most of the lower officials has dealt with the seniors who are appointed as Chairman and Members of the Boards. Their credentals are known to a good number of officers and hence it will be difficult for the Chairman to enforce transparency and clean the department of corruption.