TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucted Mr. Chhotaray has to ensure that the facts are correctly briefed to the Counsel for the Revenue appearing before this Court. The least that is expected of a State is fairness. Facts are sacred. We are unable to understand why the incorrect instructions are given to the Counsel, which in turn leads taking up time, which is otherwise scarce considering the quantum of pending income tax appeals. Moreover, the absence of the Assessing Officer being fully updated with all facts may lead to waste of time and effort on all sides. This for the reason that in case, we hold in favour of the Revenue on the present question no.(iii) in this appeal, then, the entire exercise done consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal i.e. passing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fee for obtaining the same is a capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the profit of US and UK branches is not taxable in India and should be excluded from the taxable profit of the assessee? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the issue of taxability of the sale tax exemption benefit of ₹ 58 crores availed by the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh which has not been accepted by the Revenue? 3. After Mr. Chhotaray, in support of the appeal read the aforesaid three questions of law, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we enquired of Mr. Chhotaray as to why we were informed that no order consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 22nd October, 2014 has been passed by the Assessing Officer on this issue. Mr. Chhotaray again informs us that the Assessing Officer, who has instructed him in this matter, met him twice and had specifically told him that no order has been passed consequent to the impugned order dated 22nd October, 2014 of the Tribunal in respect of this issue. We thereafter commenced dictation of this order. At this stage of our dictation, Mr. Chhotaray interjected to mention that it should be Assessing Officer / Inspector and not Assessing Officer alone. This is contrary to what was stated to us during the hearing. In fact, we wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Counsel for the Revenue leading to unnecessary waste of time and effort. 8. We adjourn the hearing of this appeal to 26th February, 2018 to enable the filing of the affidavit. 9. We also direct Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue to serve a copy of this order upon the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and also the other Chief Commissioners of Income Tax functioning within the jurisdiction of this Court. This with a hope that they will ensure that Officers who come to instruct the Counsel for the Revenue, instruct themselves on the facts of the case completely so as to brief the Counsel to represent the Revenue appropriately at the hearing of the appeal. 10. Stand over to 26th February, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
