Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 663 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTAdvantage of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS) - Petitioners’ case as submitted that Respondent No.2 concluded that amount payable would be covered under Clause (iv) of Section 88 (A) of the said Act because the tax payable by Petitioner had already been adjusted against refund to be given by the Revenue to one of the partners of Petitioner No.1 firm - HELD THAT:- The reason why we are not going into details is because Respondents, in its reply opposing the Petition, have averred that Petitioners’ Chartered Accountant, by a letter dated 5th August, 1998, has informed the Revenue that refund of ₹ 2,21,995/- that was due to a partner of the Firm – late Shri Kanhaiyalal Jain be adjusted against demand for Assessment Year 1987-88 against M/s. Anand Nagar & Company, i.e., Petitioner No.1. A copy of the said letter is also annexed at Ex. ‘C’ to the affidavit in reply. In the rejoinder, there is no denial of addressing this letter. Even in the Petition, Petitioner is totally silent about having addressed the said communication dated 5th August, 1998. Petitioner No.2 is a partner of Petitioner No.1-Firm and he ought to have disclosed to the Court and been truthful to the Court and not suppressed that such a communication was so addressed and the adjustment was made at the request of Petitioner No.1 firm. That was a material fact that has been suppressed. Courts have consistently deprecated parties or litigants who are economical with truth and who resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, the Court must nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly In Dalip Singh V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh [2009 (12) TMI 847 - SUPREME COURT] the Court bemoaned that a new creed of litigants has cropped up who do not have any respect for truth and they shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. Such a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief. The Apex Court and this Court have, on many occasions, stated that if a party comes to the Court with unclean hands, which in this case petitioner have, the party should be dealt with very strongly and substantial costs also should be imposed on the party. The conduct of petitioner in suppressing a material fact intends to impede and prejudice the administration of justice. Judiciary is the bedrock and handmaid of orderly life and civilized society - In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition.
|