Bombay High Court passes strictures against Income Tax Department

Pr. CIT Vs Radan Multimedia Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

We have found that the discipline and order, which was inculcated in the proceedings before this Court earlier is missing. There should be a dedicated legal team in the department so that this Court is assisted properly and fully. We have found that the Revenue’s advocates are often handicapped for neither the records are produced nor are officers competent to give instructions to these advocates for the Revenue present in the Court. It is time to remind the Revenue that arguing legal matters or proceedings before the highest court in the State should not be taken casually and lightly. If Appeals are filed routinely merely because the Revenue thinks that there are huge stakes involved, then, it is expected that the Revenue officials come fully prepared to Court, give instructions and before the matters are actually argued before us, they hold meeting and conference with the Revenue advocates. Very often, lack of preparation is affecting the performance of the advocates. One of the reasons why the advocates are not in a position to render complete assistance to the Court is because they themselves do not have full records. They do not have the assistance of the official, who can give them instructions. Arguing matter before a Court requires presence of mind. At times, one has to think on toes. More so, when the scales are not evenly balanced. The assessees and their counsel are fully equipped, but the Revenue does not have such degree of competence nor are they efficient enough. If court cases and legal proceedings are heavily contested, then, it is time, the Revenue officers inculcate a discipline and set their house in order. It is not sufficient that administrative in­charge takes the matter in his hands. If such administrative in­charge or head of the department is not legally trained and experienced, then, he will never be able to guide those part and parcel of legal team and an inspector level or junior officer cannot be expected to think on his toes and give immediate answers to the queries of the Court. That is how we find that the Revenue counsel are cornered. Unless and until we pass specific orders and issue directions, the Revenue officials do not remain present in Court and with records.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT

1 When these matters were placed before us for ‘admission’ and argued for some time, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/assessee in Appeal and the petitioner in Writ Petition would submit that there is a subsequent development.

2 As far as the Revenue’s Appeal which challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No.500/Mum/2005 dated 6th January, 2016 for the Assessment Year 1996­1997, the assessee moved an Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of mistakes apparent from the order. That Miscellaneous Application No.240/Mum/2016 in Income Tax Appeal No.500/Mum/2005 is decided by the Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai and now the further order corrects what is styled as mistakes apparent from the record.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.