Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1556 - HC - Income TaxSettlement Commission order u/s 245D(6) (B) - Revenue does not seek to pursue Writ Petition BUT Mr. Chhotrary, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Writ Petition states that he has not received any written instructions and, therefore, he cannot withdraw the Petition - Difference amongst the different Officers of the department - HELD THAT:- We are at a loss to understand this attitude of Mr. Chhotrary. An Officer of the Income Tax in Court states that the department does not want to pursue Writ Petition No. 2860 of 2015, yet he still insists on not withdrawing the Petition. It appears that each Income Tax Officer considers himself as independent authority and not a part of one department. If each Officer of the Income Tax is allowed to separately canvass their view point and not the department's view, it would lead to chaos. It is to be noted that all authorities under the Act function under the overall supervision of Central Board of Direct Taxes in the execution of this Act. This filing of multiple Petitions on the same cause of action is normally not done. In fact, it is the first time, we are noticing multiple Petitions are being filed by the Income Tax Department through different Officers, challenging the same impugned order. This certainly leads to waste of public money as more than one Advocate is briefed to canvass/ agitate the same issue. The grievances of the Revenue as a whole could be made a subject matter of single Petition. We had on 27th July, 2016, adjourned the Petitions on the assurance given to us by Senior Counsel Mr.Setalwad, appearing for the Revenue that both the Petitions would be examined and remedial steps taken to ensure that multiple Petitions are not filed. In spite of the above, we find that there is dichotomy amongst the different Officers of the department instructing their Counsel. It is not for us to decide the dispute between the Officers of the department. In the above facts, it is necessary that the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Department at Mumbai file an affidavit, explaining the circumstances which have led to the filing of the two Petitions on the same cause of action by two different Officers of the Revenue. Further, he should also put on record whether the department still insists on pursuing with both the Petitions and the reasons for the same. This without losing sight of the fact that the Income Tax Department as a whole was represented by one Commissioner before the Settlement Commission whose order is subject of challenge before us. Further, in case he is of the view that one of the Petitions is to be withdrawn, which one. We can only observe that the Officers of the Revenue must act in cooperation to protect its interest by putting up of joint show and not act at cross purposes. We have said so earlier, but it bears repetition, that the Commissioners of Income Tax must realize they are not independent entities but part of a team known as Income Tax Department administering the Direct Tax Laws.
|