It is common experience that Assessing Officers have the tendency to make huge additions and disallowances on frivolous grounds and raise huge tax demands. Coercive measures are adopted to recover the said demands. This causes immense hardship to honest taxpayers.
There are two reasons for the modus operandi of the Assessing Officers. The first is that the CBDT has/ had a policy of rewarding officers with plum postings and promotions based on the tax collected by them (see Collect Taxes; Get Promotion & Choice Posting: CBDT Chief). The second is that some unscrupulous officers get an excuse to demand bribes from the taxpayers (see Chief CIT Used Strong-Arm Techniques To Extort Bribe From Hapless Taxpayers: CBI Report).
Courts have passed repeated strictures to discourage the tendency to pass frivolous assessment orders. However, it has had no effect on the Assessing Officers.
In UTI Mutual Fund vs. ITO 345 ITR 71, the Bombay High Court deplored the tendency of the Assessing Officers to raise demands to meet budgetary requirements. “Administrative directions for fulfilling recovery targets for the collection of revenue should not be at the expense of foreclosing remedies which are available to assessees for challenging the correctness of a demand” the Court said.
In Bharti Airtel vs. ACIT 161 TTJ 428, where a mammoth addition of Rs. 5,739 crore was made on a flippant basis, the Tribunal lamented that it could not remain a “helpless spectator” and that for such a “frivolous addition, someone should be accountable for the resultant undue hardship to the taxpayer“.
In Pr CIT vs. Samcor Glass Ltd the Delhi High Court gave the department an ultimatum and directed that specific guidelines be laid down to prevent abuse of reopening power by the Assessing Officers.
Fortunately, the cries of the taxpayers have been heard by the Hon’ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In his latest speech, the Prime Minister has promised that Assessing Officers will be held accountable for the orders that they pass. He stated:
(Speech of the Hon’ble Prime Minister. He talks of accountability for the AO @37.00)
“We are also taking several steps to serve the honest taxpayer better. Electronic filing of returns now covers 85% of all tax returns. Earlier, electronic returns had to be followed by a paper verification which used to take weeks to be processed. This year, we have introduced e-verification using Aadhaar and over four million taxpayers made use of this facility. For them, the entire process was simple, electronic and completed instantly with no paper at all. This year, 91% of electronic returns were processed within ninety days as compared to 46% last year. Nearly 90% of refunds were issued within 90 days. I have asked the Income Tax Department to move to a system where not only returns but also scrutiny is done without having to go to the office. Queries could be raised and answered online or by Email. There should be a visible electronic trail of what is pending with whom, where, and for how long. This is being piloted in five big cities. I have also instructed that the performance appraisal system, for Income Tax Officers be changed. The appraisal should reflect, whether or not the officer’s orders and assessments have been upheld on appeal. This will deter corruption and also motivate officers to pass correct orders. When fully implemented, these changes, namely online scrutiny, and changes in performance appraisal have transformative potential.”
FICCI issued a statement in which it pointed out that it has been representing to the government over the years that assessing officers are issuing assessment orders confirming tax demands without a fair and judicious analysis of the merits of the issue and overlooking judicial precedents merely to achieve the ever elusive revenue targets prescribed for them by the government.
It emphasized that the weakness in the assessment orders is shown by the fact that on appeal 70-80 per cent of the decisions of the Tribunal are delivered against the Revenue.
“The unproductive exercise of issuing assessment orders in favour of Revenue and consequential recovery measures vitiate the tax environment and compel the assesses to litigate the matter in appeals to seek a just treatment of the tax issue. This is the primary reason for uncertainty in tax positions and unnecessary litigation” Ficci said.
Hopefully, the CBDT will respect the solemn promise of the Prime Minister and develop a fool-proof method to ensure that there is no more abuse of power by the Assessing Officers and that they are made accountable for the harassment that they mete out to taxpayers.
On the other day I happened to be a part of some AOs lunch meeting where the following points came for active discussion.
1. The Pr.Chief Commissioners had constituted committees for reviewing high pitch assessments.
2. Now any addition of more than Rs. 10 lakhs approval of the range head was needed.
3. It appears that the proposed committees are confined to such high additions made with the approval of range heads.
4. One CA who happened to be in the meeting wanted a definition of “High Pitch Assessment” because an addition of say about Rs. 10 crores might not pinch Reliance group but an addition of income resulting in additional tax of say Rs.100000 + would definitely pinch normal assessee.
5. A brief consensus has emerged about the simple definition of “High Pitch Assessment” as any addition made unreasonable ignoring the valid arguments and documents filed by the assessee or AR.
6. Since the initial discussion appears to be interesting let us this forum also discuss the definition of “High Pitch Assessment”.
Any addition made any an assessing officer without supporting evidence and a logical conclusion is a high pitched assessment
correction:read any addition made by an …instead of .any addition made any an
High Pitch Assessment cannot be defined. According to me high pitch assessment means (1) the assessment which is not based on the FACTS of the case and (2) is not in accordance with the LAW. Term “LAW” includes IT Act, IT Rules, Circulars / Instructions, and most importantly CASE LAWS on the issue involved. AO should have judicious approach and should be able to defend his ORDER before the First Appellate Authority. One of my CITs used to advice AOs not to make any addition where there were less that 50% chances of its sustaining in appeal. Monitoring of cases by Jt./ Addl.CITs and CITs will open flood-gates for corruption and harassment ; this practice should stop. Where any addition is made with the approval of the Jt./Addl.CIT or the CIT they should personally attend before the Appellate Authorities to defend their actions ; and they alone should be held responsible for their actions. In one of the search cases my IAC (now Jt./Addl.CIT) asked me to follow Appraisal Report and when I resisted his directions; he refused to give Approval and I had to bend. When the CIT(A) called me I told him that the addition was made at the instance of the IAC and he should be asked to attend ; this IAC became angry with me. If they invoke RANGE Concept, they should alone be held responsible for the lapses.
In fact some years back an instruction was issued that if the AO on the basis of information before him ,makes an addition of Rs5 lakhs he was required to take the prior approval of the CIT.It was withdrawn later when the CITs realised that their work load increased with an added responsibility.
Wisdom dawned a little late.
Sri. B.S.Waghelaji. I have made representations to the CVC, CBDT, Director of Grievances and also PMO as well as by Mr. Kurien. None of them had taken note of the issues. All it was stated that the matters had been forwarded to the concerned CBDT for disposal at their end. The CBDT never acted.
Please file applications under RTI Act with these Authorities asking them to let you know what action they have taken on your applications. After receipt of their replies File PIL before the AP High Court. This may awake them from slumber.
It came to my knowledge that many of the AOs are eagerly discussing the proposed action against high pitched assessments. During the chit chat many of the AOs of different ranges had stated that the range head had selected some categorized categories like survey cases, real estate cases, high income cases etc., to be heard by them with the help of the ITI of the range and framing an assessment order in the name of the officer. The AO had practically no role in the framing of such assessment. But they are fearing for action under this new proposal of action against high pitch assessments because they would be made accountable for the misdeeds of higher ups. They also stated that some intelligent CAs had tried to raise an objection to present the case before the range head; but they (the ARs) had been snubbed with the argument that the range was a unit of assessment and one can in the range can examine the return etc., and make a draft assessment order. Now the range heads are taking shelter under the concept of one unit of assessments but for issuing charge sheets they consider the AOs are separate entities.
If any such action by range heads had happened to your knowledge let us bring the same to this forum for wider discussion.
An assessee filed a writ petition in 9103/ 2005 seeking direction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh . The then Commissioner Mr F M Mohanty filed certain documents through a signed affidavit on or about ) October 2005. Later he revised the said affidavit. When the case came up for hearing before the Chief Justice Bilal Nazki the Commissioner rose up and said he wanted to file a fresh affidavit in addition to the ones filed before . The CJ was not pleased and he passed strictures by stating that he was an inept commissioner and asked the authorities to replace him immediately and in future all correspondence will be directly handled by the CIT with the assessee.The CJ also granted time of three weeks for the new incumbent to file the fresh affidavit.
Mr H Srinivasulu CIT who took over from him(Mr Mohanty) contacted me and sought certain details. I had held the assessing officers charge briefly during the said year. I furnished te information immediately. Then he asked me a copy of the handing over note of 20th June 2005 the date when i had handed over the charge , I told him that I had given a handing over note I did not have a copy of it immediately.However I took a copy of it which was available on the computer and handed over the same to him He asked me to date copy of the handing over note as of 27th March 2006 .I told him that was not possible for I did handed over charge on 20th June 2005. He then told me that he was directing me to do so as a Commissioner.How ever I gave him the copy of the handing over note with a covering letter dated 27th March 2006 . He was furious. He said that I could give it in the inward which I did For this (of not dating the handing over note as 27th March 2006) I was issued a charge sheet with out even a show cause notice.I am high lighting my case where superior officers by virtue of his seniority tried to intimidate the junior officers.When he directed me, he had ulterior motives. That was to save Mr Mohanty from the strictures passed by the Chief Justice. Like wise the JCIT in the case cited by Prasad directing the assessing officer.The assessing officer was intimidated by the superior officer.Under the present scheme of things the assessing officer will be held for the high pitched assessment and action taken against him. Really sad state of things Just imagine an inspector signing on the order sheet!!!! The JCIT/Addl.JCIT is not in the picture so he escapes the noose.
Mr. bobjee ,
Take this matter with the Prime Minister, FM , CBDT and CVC. Demand punishment for all those who harassed you. Please ensure that H.Srinivasulu do not get promotion as CCIT. Please persue matter till you get Reply from those persons.
Till 1985 the judicial sections and head quarters sections used to maintain guard files wherein all the circulars / instructions and important & land mark judgments were used to be circulated. Copies of the same were used to maintained by range heads and the Admn. ITO of each circle. Periodical updating was being done by all. Thereafter the concept of TAX BULLETINs have come and now they are dispensed with. The people eager of updating are contributing individually or resorting to the sites like the present forum. I afraid many of the assessing officers are still to get register their mail ids. On our part let us make us familiar to all known assessing officers.
We will be doing a yeoman service to our fellow officers.I shallon my part.
It is our misfortune that such Commissioners whose 270+ orders u/s 263 were knocked down by ITAT and who had been admonished by High Court to man the positions in Settlement Commission.
Already dthere are such instructions in respect of taking declaration during Survey and Search. It is every one’s knowledge as to how far the same is followed. Also there are instructions about giving credit to TDS without relying on 26 AS and pursue the payer than payee. this is seldom followed. Even the provisions of law not followed. Recently in Rajahmundry Officer entered one premises with authorisation for survey on particular assessee from his Superior as mandated but conducted survey on another assessee. Though there is time to issue 143(2) notice issued notice u/s.148. Sent proposal for attachment u/s.281 B of stock in trade of unsold flats for proposed demand not only that of that particular assessee but also of two other assessees on the ground they are group. This proposal is approved by the learned CIT on being received with due approval from the immediate boss viz., Jt.Commissioner. This thow light as to how the department functions. My view is that the CBDT just for public sake keep issuing circulars but never bothers to implement it. Else they can issue mandate that where there are decisions of Supreme Court it should be followed and where it is that of Jurisdictional High Court it should be followed and if it is of other state the demand raised should be kept in abeyance if such view is not accepted in that state. No officer is following this. Particularly with reference to Sec.148 it is high time the CBDT gives categorical instrucitons to avoid harassment and to follow Kelvinator which is approved in Usha International and reply to C & AG audit that the objection cannot be accepted in view of judicial pronouncement. The department is making tax payers to spend money on this issue by carrying the matter to High court even after the Tribunal is giving decisions favourable to tax payer giving a finding of fact that it is a change of opinion. I find many such appeals of department in High court. Lastly it is of no use issuing instrucitons or circulars but there should be a mechanism to verify whether the same is being followed or not.
CBDT does not follow any of the decisions of Supreme Court. It does not respect any of the decisions of SC / HC. Had it been true that it was following it should have not re-issued again the same charge sheet only to defeat the decision of SC in the case of B V Sudhakar and others. It also ignores the SC decision where the department prolongs the inquiry where there was no failure on the part of the charged officer such proceedings should be dropped. It even does not care to taken into account even if it was brought to its notice. It also ignores its own instructions that no disclosures should be taken at the time of survey and searches; but it gives charge memos and continues without considering its own circulars and SC decisions.
It should be shame on us to point all such failures of CBDT.
Your comments are substantially correct. Most of the Officers are not aware of CBDT Circulars/Instructions. In the old days, each of the AO used to get a copy of ITR/Taxmann/CTR , but these are stopped now. I represented one case where the AO applied a decision which was overruled by the SC and raised demand in lakhs. Not only this AO threatened to seize bank accounts of the assessee. It was good that the sensible CCIT stayed demand and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted disallowance.
How many of us have seen the writing on the walls by tourists on ancient monuments ( “i and neha were here too)(Neha loves rahul).Reissue of instructions is similar to these . Leaving a mark of presence at the CBDT office in the form of instructions circulars letters the list is endless. Most of it repetitions of the earlier ones and not making any value additions but only smear its files without any value additions .Value additions can be made by intellectuals but not by those who man(woman) the august office now.
If a lawyer,
I) has knowledge of law
2) Command over language
3) has not entered the profession thru back door
4) has good level of testosterone
5) is hard working
6) is studious
7) concerned about his committed fees
8) follows rules of society
is never a loser.
I hope you understand me.
They used to be the way things used to be till about 30 years back till it was instilled the blue eyed boys that they are Gods(at the Nagpur academy).And these are the blue eyed creatures who occupy the seat of power.
National Academy of Direct Taxes (NADT) is situated just opposite Mental Hospital, which is known as PAGALKHANA CHOWK. From this you can imagine behaviour of candidates coming out of this Academy. From day one of joining NADT most of the probationers dream of becoming millionairs in very short time.
Sri Waghela sir. You have cleared my long lasting doubt why these IRS people behave like this. I thank for your clarification. The following two instances will reveal truth in my doubts.
One – One direct recruit officer while going through tappals received from inward section a request to issue a fresh refund order or re-validate the original issued one. He wrote his remarks as “UDC – please type out one refund order and issue”. That person had become the cadre controlling authority of a State.
Another DI (Investigation) while approving the appraisal report of a search and seizure case and while scrutinizing the Trial Balance commented that there was no “Closing Stock” and its value should be added to the quantum of escapement. The AO who passed did not include since the trial balance would not contain the details of closing stock.
That AO was lucky enough that the DI(INV) did not make complaint against him for not following Appraisal Report. I know one CIT (who approved the Draft Asstt. Orders) against whom DI made oral complaint to the DG for not following Appraisal Report in toto ; and this DG was known for his corrupt practices.
Sri Waghelaji, The DI did not keep quite. He issued a memo calling for explanation through regular CIT who had in turn forwarded to the AO for explanation. The reply of the AO is on record and the AO shown the reply and marked a copy to the Association.
It is a good thing that ultimately the Ministry of Finance has realised that credit should not be given to the assessing officers for creating unrealisable demands that keep on burgeoning tax demands in the books of the department for collection of which all efforts go in vain and valuable public resources and manpower are wasted and the person responsible for raising such demands is never hauled up but rewarded by the department.
Keep record of the AOs making high pitched unreasonable assessment orders. Also record of their supervisory officers like JCITs, Addl.CITs and CITs, for not exercising proper control. Deny them Annual Increments as well Promotions. AOs are supposed to be quasi-judicial officers, but their superiors ask them to be PREJUDICIAL , because they want money and other favours from the AOs. VERY GOOD MOVE BY NARENDRA MODI.
Mr Waghles solution is a very balanced one.The supervisory officers role is set out in his comments.I salute him for a solution that comes straight from the heart.Heartless people cannot thinkthe way he hasput across his line of action
This is the best move initiated by our beloved Honourable Prime minister. Needless to speak about the quality of assessment orders passed by the AOs. Most of the assessing officers do not have any basic accounting knowledge (Dr Cr) but sit for passing assessment orders. Even amount credited to profit and loss account are added into total income making the addition as double taxation , while passing the assessment order. This is due to their seer ego and vested interest. E-scrutiny assessment is highly appreciated and as per my opinion it would definitely definitely reduce drastically corruption involved in the process because of transparency and non personal meet. Jai hind. Long live Mr. Prime minister.
A CIT did not know the basics of accounting went on to pass ordersu/s263 of the IT act.All the orders were struck down by the ITAT.in some cases stritchers were passed.He went on to become CCIT at Mumbai.
typo mistakes
instead of stritchers read strictures
ThisCCIT is now posted at the Settlement Commission
It is true that some of the AOs do not known Credit / Debit in the accounts. I know one Direct AO who used to verify Trading Account while making Wealthtax assessment. This man one day became CIT(Appeals).
This is high time that tax payers shall be protected from so called WHITE COLLER BABUS (the term was coined by Britishers) sitting in AC rooms. These persons do not have any knowledge of problems at ground level. Taking decision is easy at the rooms without understanding the problems at ground level.Life time Pensions for such IAS IRS and other government officers who are enjoying the unwarranted powers BRITISH era ACTS & RULES designed to loot the country. And no benefit for the TAX PAYER who pays tax during life time. Why they need to be provided pension for life + the enhanced pay recommended by Fifth Pay Commission. These ACTS were designed for British Rulers to RULE the masses, harass them, extract money, loot the country and divert all wealth. How can the same rules continue to apply today whereby the same harassment + loot continue – only change being British Officers have been replaced by Indian (govt) officers ? Is the PM listening ?
This certainly is a step in right direction.
We better be careful while applauding it. The danger is that a spontaneous (and well deserved as well) applause may be mistaken as “an acknowledgment of delivery” and the matter is forgotten.
WHAT IS REQUIRED IS CLARITY IN RULES AND LAWS OF TAXATION GIVING NO SCOPE FOR THE AOs TO TWIST THE MATTERS.
REWARD HONEST OFFICERS.
SIR IT CAN NOT STOP RATHER INCREASING BY DAY TO DAY THEIR IS FAILURE ON THE PARTY OF SENIOR AUTHORITY NO MATTER IS PENDING IN SPITE OF CBDT INSTRUCTION ASSESSING HAVE NO FEAR GOOD ATTITUDE REACH OFFICE BY 11AM
Here is another instance of partisan attitude of CBDT. One assessing officer had passed passed modification orders consequent to appeals. While doing so he allowed the relief granted by the appellate authorities and also calculated the resultant tax and interest. Naturally the interest component would be lesser than the original demand. Simultaneously there were orders waiving the interest component which was not done by the assessing officer for want of certain original orders. But the CIT had passed orders u/s 25(2) – These are Wealth Tax demands – in which he stated that he called for the records, seen and found that the AO had reduced the waived interest which the AO in fact did not do. The AO was issued charge sheet stating that he had allowed interest which was not wanted. He explained with evidences what he had reduced was consequent to appeal orders and not with reference to waiver orders. The CBDT did not agree with the AO’s explanation and as on today it is proposing to shift the decision to UPSC in line with HOTA Committee report. It could have taken a decision based on the evidences available in the assessment records but is not doing so. So is the practice of the AOs who are afraid of penal actions, they are passing high pitched assessments throwing the ball in to the court of appellate authorities. NO DOUBT THIS SORT OF PRACTICE IS TO BE CONDEMNED BY ALL.
It is the attitude of the CBDT that gives rise to ego building. On one hand it is creating fear psychosis for genuine and proactive officers on the other it is showing pampering attitude towards those Commissioners who flout the provisions of the Act itself. On the other day it had issued a circular that some Commissioners of Incometax (Exemptions) had been ignoring the stipulated time bound statutory work and would be taken if they violate the time limits prescribed under the Act. If it really finds that any particular Commissioner violated the time limits stipulated in respect of his statutory work it should have demonstrated by taking but would not have issued a circular. On the other hand if a proactive and genuine lower authority commits a small mistake it is creating threatening acts like adverse CRs, inspections and vigilance inspections etc. Will the heads of the departments like Commissioners and above get the feeling that they are are immune to punitive actions. In fact rule 3(1) of conduct rules specify any employee is susceptible for action for his negligence and gross misbehavior. But the CBDT’s attitudes of this type create confusion and pessimism among the majority of the rule abiding officers.
Bizarre actions by senior officers are protected by CBDT.In 1995 on the basis of an agreement between the Govt of india and the CBDT certain valuable assets was taken over by the Government to protect heirlooms being purchased by out side agencies valued by recognised agenciesat Rs1000 of crores.( Christies of UK) The GOI acquired this at a pittance. Though the asset was known to be a an antiquity under the antiquities act of 1972 wand is exempt from tax under some guise or the other the tax authorities brought to tax the value of the asset within the tax net and also taxed the proceeds to capital gains . A deposit was made with the knowledge of the CBDT and the GOI with a specific understanding that the lien on the deposit would be lifted on completion of the proceeding and also the deposit which was under lien would be released to the assessee based on the appeal before the CIT. Sad to say even after 20 years of completion of the assessment proceedings and appeal, the CBDT in connivance with the lower authorities have failed to release the lien on this fixed deposit .This is being stonewalled by the CBDT just to safe guard the CIT who made a huge blunder .The High court passed severe strictures on the said Commissioner. To save the said Commissioner for the blunder,the blame was put on junior officers against whom charge sheets were filed ,The remarks passed against the said Commissioner were toned down and was promoted as CCIT.Interestingly 200 orders U/S 263 passed by the said Commissioner were cancelled by the ITAT with strictures
In the mean while all the high pitched assessments which were struck down at the various appeal stages as early as 1997.The taxes which were collected under duress is yet to be refunded and the lien on the Fixed deposit is yet to be lifted(as of date) . The refund due to the assessee is not refunded under some pretext or the other. The amount of the refund works out to more than Rs 75 crores
Lets see how the PM is going to act on this blatant action of the department .The case is coming up before the Supreme court in the next few days and a contempt case filed by the assessee against the Commissioner is also kept pending in the high court for the last 5 years.The written directions issued of the CCIT were flouted by the CIT and officers who did the job within the parameters of law with written directions from the higher authorities with due diligence chargesheeted and the proceedings kept on hold for the past 8 years just to safe guard the blunder of the CIT.
The CBDT is the main authority which is creating confusion among the assessing officers. Where a proactive assessing officer acts quasi-judicial way he is being awarded with disciplinary action. To cite an instance, the proactive assessing officer with right intention had gone into details of valuation of stock as on the date of survey to examine the aspect of unexplained investment. The stock was valued on estimate basis of gross profit which was more than double of the gross profit till the previous day of the survey and arrived at a notional stock value. In order to verify whether there were any single purchase outside books of account, he tried to ascertain what was the nature of excess stock. He did not do survey. The assessee neither gone back from the declaration and payment of taxes. Either the survey report of or stock inventory did not throw any light on the nature of excess stock found. Since he was precluded from finding of the same by the time of assessment, he accepted the figures as found during survey and return of income. Now the issue raised was that why the assessing officer did not make an extra addition u/s 69 and the matter was examined u/s 263 and the CIT had dropped the proceedings. The CBDT had approved a disciplinary proceedings based on a time barred reopened assessment which was knocked down by the Tribunal. Is it not intimidating the proactive assessing officers?
Through this medium an useful discussion is taking on high pitched assessments. Leaving aside the ill-willed assessing officers, many of the assessing officers are fear stricken mainly of disciplinary actions for not making additions. The attitude of the CBDT as on this day of November 2015 did not change. An assessing officer who accepted agricultural income from agricultural holding of Ac.14.75 and who had declared over a period of 8 years varying from Rs.65000 to Rs. 85000 is found fault in accepting the income without applying the provisions of assessment of agricultural income stipulated in the First Schedule to Finance Act of an year. This was pointed out by an Inspector during Vigilance inspection who forgot that the assessing officer while acting as quasi-judicial authority had used certain amount of discretion. The matter was converted into disciplinary action and went up to the level of CBDT which was still holding same view expressed by the Inspector during vigilance inspection. What kind of signals the CBDT is giving to the assessing officers with this type of attitude? In fact in the department 75% of high pitched assessments are made only of fear psychosis. This should also be addressed by the PM or FM.
hi all,
The proposal made by the Namo is welcomed by me. The Assessing officers should be punished for their intentional making of high pitched assessments and raising high and huge demands without any legal cause or without any proof of facts.
They should be punished with fine along with transfer to remote areas.
thanks to Namo.
sri ram
High pitched assts. are tools in the hands of the corrupt administrative heads to extract money from assessees.There is a famous dialogue in the income tax department where a case is taken up for scrutiny.”One if I dont open the file four if i open it” It is always a better option to get away with one than fight the officials .
The appeal authorities love officers who make high pitched assessment order for there in lies the money and making it easy.They know which side of the bread is buttered
I over heard a senior officer who was pally with his junior advising him to file a return in his mothers name and wifes name . Borrow jewellry from a jeweller and take photo graphs in the wedding attire.It will be useful in later life !!!!! If possible file the wealth tax returns paying nominal tax.
That’s precisely what the politicians are doing now.A senior minister in AP boasted that he earned Rs10 crores from one acre of land using israeli inputs .It made head lines.In Maharastra too the same modus operandi is in vogue.and perhaps it has percolated to all places in India.especially revenue collecting department and law enforcing depts.
PM has rightly taken the stand. Finance ministry perforce need to follow, as PM is the first among equals in the cabinet, so naturally finance minister would have issued directives to ministry to direct CBDT accordingly.
Former PMs never bothered about tax payers; glad the present incumbent does means he follows closely, that is a right way any PMs need to function.
without tax payers in volition government cannot function. So it is vital penalty clauses shd be removed forthwith from the income tax Act 1961, so that tax payers would be confident of government and they would pay taxes as soon as demanded or after some time lapse,never think there will be actus rea in the tax payer as also there can never be mens rea in any tax payer is my view.
(2) There was system of Review of assessment orders by the CITs. Notes are prepared by the Inspectors as per their legal knowledge; and mostly fault finding; and signed by the CITs. Hundred of Orders u/s.163 were passed, assessments were made accordingly and they were Cancelled by the ITATs. Some also CITs earned money in this process.
(3) One CIT had collected Lists of Seach cases and where actions u/s.133A had taken place. He used to take periodical meetings of individual AOs till he had not received barb money.
(4) In one of my asstt. order was taken up for Annual Inspection. The learned IAC raised an objection as to why I had not disallowed Car Expenses for personal use of the car. Total car expenses claimed were Rs.800/- only.
(5) There are some AOs who make high pitched assessments where they do not get money.
There are so many reasons for making unreasonable assessments. CBDT has to review/revise its Guidlines.
Mr. Narendra Modi is right in saying that high pitched assessments should not be made. But there are several reasons for such high peached assessments. From my own experience I am narrating below some of the reasons:
(1) DI conducts searches and his officers prepare Appraisal Reports. In the past CBDT had issued Instructions that assessment orders in search cases should be passed in consultation with the DI. Meetings used to take place between the CIT approving the Draft assessments order and the ADIT. In all these cases ADIT insisted that his Apprisal Reports were correct and they should be accepted without any variation. I know some cases where ADI made complaints to the DG(Inv) against the concerned CIT for not accepting Apprisal Report in toto; and the DG doubted integrity of the concerned CIT..This DG was known for corrupt practices.
(2)
Dear sir
It is most welcome move ,in our practise ,due to number of reasons ,A O make huge additions by high pitch orders ,we get relief in Appeals, ,but at cost and time loss Now accountability of A O will reduce unwanted unjustifiable additions .THanks to CBDT
CA S R Maniyar Jalgaon
One CIT used to tell AOs not to fill coffers of CIT(A)s by making high pitched unreasonable assessments. Another CIT used to tell his AOs not to make any addition unless there were more than 50% chances of sustaining addition in appeal. One CIT had made it compulsory to seek his APPROVAL where proposed addition was more than Rs.5000/-. I have worked under all these CITs. Gone are those golden days when such CITs were well versed in law and had confidence in themselves. It is good thing that wisdom had dawn upon the CBDT after a long time. One learned IAC had adversely commented in his Annual Inspection Report where I had not made any disallowance out of total Car Expenses of Rs.800/- ; and the CIT had adversely commented against such comment.I had told that IAC that if 20% disallowance is made (roughly Rs.160) tax effect would be Rs.20/- and it would be in bad taste, and still he gave adverse comments.
The first great step towards “Achhe Din”. Keep it up Prime Minister Sir.
It is not known whether the PM had examined the cumbersome procedure laid by the CBDT like inspections, audits, weak appeal orders etc. because such stuff like inspections including vigilance inspections raise all stupid objections calling for disciplinary actions. For instance the Vigilance inspections had raised many objections in the case manually processed returns u/s 143(1) where the assessing officers had a very very limited for adjustments and the vigilance inspections suggested disciplinary proceedings. This happened in my own case and the CBDT is not concluding the proceedings. So I hope the PM’s speech should not fall flat.