High Court Displeasure at the Way Income Tax Department handled case
IN a Revenue Appeal against an ITAT Order before the High Court, it was pointed out to Revenue that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was based on its own decision, rendered on the same issue, for Assessment Year 1994-1995; which was in favour of the assesse. The Court wanted the Counsel to find out whether the Revenue had preferred an appeal against the said decision.
For more than three years, Revenue was not able to furnish this simple information. After more than three years, Revenue informed the Court that it was not able to obtain a certified copy of the judgment of the Tribunal!
The High Court stated, “What amazes us is that the revenue did not deem it fit to file an appeal (if it otherwise was of the view that the judgment of the Tribunal raised substantial questions of law which deserved the attention of this court) by taking recourse to an application, seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the judgment.”
The High Court directed that the Chairman, CBDT to conduct an enquiry into the delay caused in obtaining the judgment of the Tribunal.
What happened then?
No Delay by ITAT : The ITAT informed the High Court that the orders were sent by speed post on 19.04.2007. The ITAT was again approached vide an application dated 09.09.2010, received in the office on 13.09.2010, which was replied to by the letter dated 12.10.2010. Thereafter, once again a letter emanated from the office of the CIT dated 24.11.2011 requesting for issuance of a certified copy of the order, which was sent by speed post. This was followed by yet another request for issuance of a certified copy of the order vide letter dated 16.01.2012. Once again, ITAT dispatched a copy of the order on 18.01.2012.
Counsel for Revenue informed the Court that the explanation of the ITO was called for and matter has been referred to the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax-I, who is the Cadre Controlling Authority.
The Court directed the Chief Commissioner to inform the court his decision by 20.04.2012 and the Chief Commissioner informed the Court that the delinquent officer is a Group A officer and the administrative action in case of such officers has to be taken by the Board, for which the documents have been sent to the CBDT.
Now, the Court directed the CBDT to inform the court its decision by 03.08.2012.