Central Board of Direct Taxes
FT &TR-II Division
F. No. 500/12/2013-SO/FT&TR-2(1)
New Delhi, dated 30th October, 2014
ORDER NO. 11/FT&TR/2014
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (15) of section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1951) read with income tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 as amended from time to time and in addition to earlier Orders constituting Dispute Resolution Panels at Mumbai, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby constitutes the Dispute Resolution Panel-IV at Mumbai comprising of three Commissioners of income-tax as Members of the said Panel with a Reserve Member in such Panel in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Income-tax(Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 as under:
|
S. No. |
Area(s) of Jurisdiction |
Members of Panel |
Reserve Member of the Panel |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
|
1. |
DRP-IV, Mumbai | 1. CIT(Appeals)-19,Mumbai2. CIT(Appeals)-37, Mumbai
3. CIT(Appeals)-39, Mumbai |
CIT(Appeals)-23, Mumbai |
2. The Members of DRP shall perform such duties in addition to their regular duties. This order will be effective from 1st November, 2014.
3. This issues with the approval of Chairman, CBDT.
(A. Sreenivasa Rao)
Director(FT & TR-II)
(A. Sreenivasa Rao)
Director (FT & TR-II)
idea is good. in fact dispute resolution methodology should be not too much stringent law oriented, as errors do happen not because of deliberateness of the tax payers but because of ignorance or wrong advice advanced by consultants to the tax payers just because tax payers do not know how to select his adviser as tax payer invariably not well equipped in tax laws. Further every professional cannot know all professionalism, as professionalism means a highly integrated personality by virtue of reasonable thorough study of the area in which he is equipped. Good Professionalism would just eliminate all corruption of any kind.
Most professionals now adopt or resort to liaison mechanism as an easy tool to sort out issue but really it fosters corrupt practices.
Conflict Resolution is essentially based on peaceful meaningful settlement mostly in volition depending upon positive convincibility communication and there would not be tears for anyone and in that art the members should necessary qualify not by virtue of degrees and diplomas which cannot make necessarily every one into a great conciliator.
so high care in inviting resolving members is indeed a must, there need not be all revenue men/persons but good sociologists may be invited who can really contribute to resolution meaningfully, so that conciliation mechanics would reduce conflicts in volition process that is the objective of mediation and conciliation, thus conflicts would dramatically reduce conflicts in every branch of activity.
here in taxation jurisprudence prudence not just strategic tact plays role, as prudence would build confidence on each other more realistically.
taxpayer is a Kamadenu to government but certainly need to be treated in a most civilized confidence building way so both can live together meaningfully i believe, if that could be achievable then success is imminent else disputes and conflicts would multiply, that is the behavior of man once his confidence hits on minus side of resolution scale