2016 (9) TMI 1311 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Income Tax Appeal, Emphasizes Valid Justifications

The court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision favoring the Respondent Assessee, emphasizing the need for valid justifications in ... Grant of adjournment - Held that:- At the request of Mr. Tejveer Singh, the appeal is adjourned by a period of two weeks to enable him to obtain appropriate instructions and file an affidavit, explaining the circumstances, which would warrant prosecuting the present appeal. This in the face of the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of Super Metal Industries (2008 (8) TMI 385 - ITAT BOMBAY-E), which seem to be accepted by the Revenue. However this adjournment is being granted subject to costs. In view of the fact that the Appellant Revenue is the Commissioner of Income Ta-xIV, whose responsibility it is to ensure that the orders of this Court are complied with and followed in like cases. Therefore it would be appropriate to direct that Appellant – Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Pune, (the Appellant herein) to pay cost of ₹ 10,000/personally to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (State Legal Aid Fund) on or before 3 October 2016. Issues:Challenging order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Reliance on earlier Tribunal order, Requirement of justifying appeal, Adjournment for filing affidavit, Payment of costs by Commissioner of Income Tax-IV.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment block period 1991-92 to 20001 and 200102 (part). The Tribunal's order favored the Respondent Assessee, relying on a previous case, Super Metal Industries vs. DCIT. However, the appeal memo did not present any distinguishing features from the cited case, nor did it contest the earlier Tribunal's decision. The court emphasized the importance of certainty in tax matters and equal application of the law. It stated that if an issue has been settled by a court or tribunal decision and accepted by the Revenue, further litigation should only occur with valid justifications like a change in law. The court adjourned the appeal for two weeks to allow the appellant to file an affidavit justifying the appeal, with costs imposed due to the lack of proper grounds initially.The appellant's counsel, representing the Revenue, sought an adjournment to obtain instructions and file the required affidavit. The court noted that despite previous orders emphasizing the need for proper justifications for appeals, Revenue officers often neglected this requirement and sought adjournments instead. The court granted the adjournment but subject to costs, highlighting the importance of complying with legal procedures and justifying appeals adequately.Furthermore, the court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax-IV to personally pay costs to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority as the appellant, being a responsible entity, should ensure compliance with court orders in similar cases. The payment of costs was made a condition precedent for the appellant Revenue to be heard in the appeal, emphasizing the significance of following legal directives and fulfilling financial obligations as mandated by the court.The judgment concluded by setting the next hearing date and highlighting the importance of adhering to legal procedures and directives, especially concerning the justification of appeals and the payment of costs as mandated by the court to ensure proper compliance with legal requirements and principles.