Case Law Details

Case Name : CIT, Ghaziabad Vs. Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (Supreme Court)
Appeal Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 26127/2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 27-08-2018
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (1120)

CIT, Ghaziabad Vs. Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court on Monday imposed a fine of Rs. 10 Lakh on the Income Tax Department for its casual approach and for giving a totally misleading statement in the case.

 This petition for special to leave has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad.

First of all this petition has been filed after a delay of 596 days. There is an inadequate and unconvincing explanation given for the delay in filing the petition.

Secondly, it is mentioned in the proforma for first listing that a similar matter being C.A. No. 7096/2012 is pending in this Court. However, the office has given a report stating that C.A. No. 7096/2012 was decided by this Court as far back as on 27.09.2012. In other words, the petitioners have given a totally misleading statement before this Court. We are shocked that the Union of India through the Commissioner of Income Tax has taken the matter so casually.

As we have noted, there is an inadequate explanation of delay of 596 days in filing the petition and a misleading statement about pendency of a similar civil appeal. Under the circumstances, we dismiss the petition with costs of Rs.10 lacs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. The amount be utilized for juvenile justice issues.

List the matter for compliance after four weeks.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

One Comment

  1. vswami says:

    OFFHAND
    “…to be paid…” – by whom ? If by the Exchequer (?), why should that be so ? ; which means, it is to be borne out of taxpayers’ monies. Should not the levy and collection be from the ‘public servant (s)’, found guilty , personally, or be recovered from the so-found-guilty, so as to really serve the intended objective of meting out the deterrent punishment for the blatant callousness and dereliction in performance of the individual(s)’duties of office ?
    tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *