High Court unhappy with sad state of affairs in ITAT
We often find that the HONOURABLE Judges – quasi or full, often hear the parties and then reserve the orders. These orders are delivered after a couple of months or years as per their convenience.
When the order is delivered after a few months after hearing, obviously, they can't recollect the arguments – and the hearing becomes a farce. Sometimes, we find that such orders are totally different from what they suggested in the open courts.
The Departmental Adjudication is worse.– They never pass an order immediately after the personal hearing, because most of the orders are written by subordinate officers! The least that these officers can do is to pronounce their verdict and record it in the file immediately after hearing.
Recently the Bombay High Court was aghast at the ITAT delivering a judgement four months after the date of hearing.
The High Court directed the President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down guidelines on similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal.
Meanwhile, all the revisional and appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act are directed to decide matters heard by them within a period of three months from the date a case is closed for judgement.
Should this also not apply to CESTAT and all Adjudication and Appellate Authorities under CBEC?
We bring you this interesting order today – Please see Breaking News.