HC shows displeasure on appeal filing by dept. in matters covered by binding precedent of Apex Court
Case Law Details
Case Name : CIT Vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (Bombay High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Bombay High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Bombay High Court was annoyed for filing appeal in a matter covered by a binding precedent of the Apex Court. The Court sought an explanation from the counsel for the Income Tax Department why appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act has been filed by him when there was an authoritative pronouncement on the issue by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Tulsyan NEC Ltd. 300 ITR 226 (SC). On his pretext that the decision to file an appeal is taken by the Jurisdictional Commissioner and he has merely abided by his directions, the Court irked by his
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
OFFHAND
Strictly speaking, the underlying message from the Bench must be regarded to equally apply to / be extended to take within its ambit, – besides issues squarely/’on all fours’ covered by any earlier court ruling(s), be that of the SC or HC, – also a point sought to be made an issue but not open to any such genuine/bona fide controversy as to prove defensible in an intelligent debate; much less the tests of judicial prudence. That is, one on which the law is so unambiguously clear , in letter and / or spirit, as to lend no scope for the lower authorities failing to readily see and appreciate as to what view is the right or better view to impartially take. To put it differently, no tax authority can be considered to have “acted in the performance of his duties”/ well within the frame work of the law, of which he is a creature, as a “public servant”, if he does or omits to do something repugnant to what the law says, or is clearly intended to say.
The overwhelmingly large volumes of case law, apart from the large number of retrospective legislation resorted to over the de3cades, bear ample testimony / is a pointer to the actual fact that the reality, that has been daunting/marring the tax administration all along,been quite opposite/ different.
Unfortunately there is no accountability for filing frivolous appeals on one hand and the officers who take decision of not filing appeals face difficult questions from their superiors and sometime branded as pro-trade or even corrupt. Those officers who take negative decisions ie against trade are hailed as honest. Mindset has to change at top level.