Income Tax department has come under sharp criticism from the Delhi High Court for filing appeal against tax tribunal decisions in which issue of law is well settled. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan said that judicial capital is extremely limited and it should not be wasted in needless litigations.
“In our view, appeal should not be filed in matters where either no question of law arises or the issue of law is a settled one. We give this direction because the ”judicial capital” in terms of manpower and resources is extremely limited,” the court said.
The court”s direction came on a petition filed by the revenue department challenging an order of tax tribunal ITAT. The court, which was inclined to impose cost on the department, refrained by warning it to be careful in future before filing appeal against ITAT. “Though we were initially inclined to impose costs yet we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met by giving a direction to the revenue to be more careful before filing appeals in a routine manner,” the bench said.
Source: PTI
I was recently told by one retired ACIT that for the CIT(Appeal) orders favouring assessee, he used to evaluate the same on merit and would or would not intiate filing of appeal in ITAT. But he was summoned by his CIT and told to always file the appeal with the ITAT, irrespective of merit. Even the honest officers are not allowed to work in a proper manner, even if they want to!
I agree with the views expressed by Bidup. Second issue is no subordinate officer in Income tax department is willing to take a stand for the fear of having to face inquiries for accepting a decision that led to loss of revenue. So they take pains to distinguish their case from the one where the court ruling was accepted.
Who in the Deptt. will bother about this? Not even the CBDT. And, after all, it is the menace of the mindless objections raised by the incompetent and unlearned aiudit officers of the CAG who are at the root of this menace. The unequivocal mandate of the government (conveyed through the CBDT) for ages is that:even if the audit objection is most FRIVOLOUS, factually incorrect and also not legally tenable and acceptable, the department MUST initiate action by way of rectification or revision or reopening and even though this results in creating uncollectible demands raised for academic purposes and for increasing the ever-mounting pressures on the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
The IT deptt. is a petty subordinate deptt., quasi-judicial merely in name and for show-in reality, it is a tool in the hands of the higher bureaucracy. And certainly subservient to the CAG.