The Ir Reverent Service – AAR's displeasure – attempt to belittle AAR cannot be countenanced - pejorative comments of the Commissioner unwarranted
The Authority for Advance Rulings is headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India, but that doesn't seem to make the arrogant civil servant show any respect to such an exalted judicial forum.
In a recent order, the AAR, keeping in tune with its high stature, very politely deprecated the attitude of a respondent Commissioner of Income Tax. The AAR observed,
1. In effect, the Commissioner submits that the filing of this application would amount to abuse of the provisions for seeking advance ruling and by entertaining and deciding this application, the Authority will be “subverting the ordinary process of judicial determination prescribed under the Act” and will be created ‘judicial disarray'.
2. We do not find any merit in the strongly worded objection raised by the Commissioner for admitting this application under section 245R (2) of the Act. On the one hand, the Commissioner concedes that in “technical sense”, the applicant is entitled to maintain this application, for the obvious reason that the applicant is eligible to apply for ruling and none of the embargos laid down in sub-section(2) of section 245R are attracted.
3. From the comments of the Commissioner, it is clear that the assessing authority felt itself bound by the ITAT's decision in preference to the ruling of this Authority and, therefore, passed an order, that too an unreasoned order, under section 197 of the IT Act rejecting the applicant's submission.
4. The pejorative comments against the applicant for availing of a remedy conferred by law are unwarranted.
5. It is trite that this Authority, the applicant and the Revenue are bound by the provisions of statute and nothing shall be done or suggested which has the effect of nullifying the clear provisions creating a speedy remedy under the aegis of an independent adjudicating body.
6. The apparent attempt to denude this Authority of its undoubted jurisdiction and raising a bogey of creating “judicial disarray” even when this Authority is seeking to exercise its legitimate jurisdiction without in any way outstepping the contours assigned by law is not in keeping with healthy traditions.
7. We can only express our dismay at the language chosen by the Commissioner.
8. The stand taken by the Commissioner would come to this: Whenever there is a decision of the Tribunal favourable to Revenue, the AAR must stay its hands off and decline to entertain the application unless, for sure, the Authority toes the same line as that set by the Tribunal; otherwise, the Authority will be created a ‘judicial disarray' or chaos.
9. Such an attempt to belittle the role of this Authority in the statutory scheme of adjudication cannot be countenanced.
Please see