Full Text of the order is attached..........
CIT vs. Sairang Developers and Promoters Pvt.Ltd (Bombay High Court),Income Tax Appeal No.2603 OF 2011), Dated- 28.04.2014 In this Hon'ble Bombay High Court has given an opportunity to revenue to withdraw the Appeal as appeal was not having any merit and was not raising any substantial question of law. Hon'ble High Court Held as follows […]
Tendency of not accepting any adverse verdict on facts results in frivolous Appeals
CIT vs. Sairang Developers and Promoters Pvt.Ltd (Bombay High Court),Income Tax Appeal No.2603 OF 2011), Dated- 28.04.2014
In this Hon'ble Bombay High Court has given an opportunity to revenue to withdraw the Appeal as appeal was not having any merit and was not raising any substantial question of law. Hon'ble High Court Held as follows :-
We do not find how Officers lower down in the hierarchy can take decisions to file Appeals and that too against the decision of the Tribunal. The tendency not to accept any adverse verdict on facts results in frivolous Appeals being filed in this Court. That causes huge loss to the public exchequer and results in wastage of precious judicial time of this Court. All this ought to have been discouraged long time back. The High Court has not adopted a strict approach and that has possibly encouraged the Revenue in filing Appeals to challenge essentially findings of fact and with regard to matters which should stand concluded at the level of the authorities. The officials should realize that the authorities like CIT(A) and the ITAT are envisaged as appellate and possibly final fact finding authorities and at least the Tribunal is last in that hierarchy. The fact finding therefore if demonstrably perverse or palpably erroneous and as would amount to unsettling the settled position in law alone should be questioned by filing Appeals to this Court. However, a routine exercise and by people who do not wish to take any responsibility, results in number of Appeals being filed and pending. This benefits no one and rather defeats larger public interest. The Revenue collection and equally the participation of the assessee in the exercise undertaken by the authorities to assess their income, therefore is affected adversely. None takes a position or decision because of pendency of matters and for a long time. In these circumstances, while dismissing this Appeal, we impose costs quantified at Rs.50,000/. The costs be paid to the assessee within four weeks from today. We at least now expect the authorities to take cognizance and initiate proceedings for recovery of this amount personally from such of the Officers who do not take decisions or postpone them endlessly.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the CIT Pune. It should also be forwarded to the Chief CIT, Pune who may decide as to who should pay the costs personally as between them or anybody else who has brought about this situation.
Aghast and upset with the trend, the Delhi and Bombay High Courts and CBDT have decided to take the Income Tax bull by its horns! In order to meet the end of justice and regain the faith and credence among the tax payers CBDT and many High Court has passed strictures and recovered cost.
The Centralized Processing Cell (TDS) has released a new feature on its web-portal TRACES, where a Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) can be used for availing various services offered by the portal. You are advised to take note of the following key information in this regard: Under Information Technology Act, 2000, a "Digital Signature" means authentication […]
CPC (TDS) -Use of Digital Signatures on TRACES – Suggestions
The Centralized Processing Cell (TDS) has released a new feature on its web-portal TRACES, where a Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) can be used for availing various services offered by the portal.
You are advised to take note of the following key information in this regard:
- Under Information Technology Act, 2000, a "Digital Signature" means authentication of any electronic record by a subscriber by means of an electronic method or procedure in accordance with the provisions of section 3.
The Digital Signature keeps record of the person who is availing the facility. - Please exercise caution in use of Digital Signature and should not be shared in any circumstances. If shared, the person using DSC shall also be liable to consequences.
- In accordance with the Information Technology Act, 2000, every subscriber shall exercise reasonable care to retain control of the private key corresponding to the public key listed in his Digital Signature Certificate and take all steps to prevent its disclosure to a person not authorised to affix the digital signature of the subscriber
- TRACES has provided facility for Admin and Sub-users to facilitate authorised Sub-users to carry out activities on TRACES and submit to the Admin user. The Admin user has the rights to approve the activities using the DSC.
- It is therefore, advised to refrain from using the Digital Signature of any person other than the Authorised Person appointed by the deductor, for carrying out any activity on TRACES.
Please note that the "Authorised Person" is referred to as "Person Responsible" in accordance with Section 204 read with Section 200 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other relevant provisions for deduction of tax. (Source- Traces)
 | |||||||
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment