High Court Raises Concerns Over Lack of Authorization for Income Tax Counsel The Allahabad High Court expressed serious concern over the lack of proper authorization for representation by a Senior Standing Counsel for the Income ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
High Court Raises Concerns Over Lack of Authorization for Income Tax Counsel
The Allahabad High Court expressed serious concern over the lack of proper authorization for representation by a Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, leading to potential interference in the administration of justice. Emphasizing the importance of timely actions, the Court directed relevant authorities to appear before the Court to address the delay in renewing the Counsel's term and ensure proper assistance in legal proceedings. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in Lucknow and the Commissioner of Income Tax-I were required to clarify the situation, with the Court instructing the registry to promptly send copies of the order for compliance.
Issues: Lack of proper authorization for representation by Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. Delay in renewal of term causing hindrance in administration of justice.
In this judgment by the Allahabad High Court, the issue at hand revolves around the lack of proper authorization for representation by a Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. The Court was informed that the Counsel's term had expired, and despite attempts to return the briefs and seek renewal, no proper authorization was provided. This raised concerns about interference in the administration of justice due to the lack of assistance from the Revenue department. The Court emphasized the importance of timely actions and interim arrangements in such situations to avoid delays in legal proceedings.
The Court expressed serious concern over the lackadaisical attitude of the concerned authorities and the potential interference in the administration of justice caused by the delay in renewing the Counsel's term. The judges highlighted the difficulty in deciding cases without proper assistance from the Revenue department. They noted that the Department should have made interim arrangements promptly, especially considering the high volume of appeals they handle daily. The Court emphasized that it was the duty of the authorities to inform relevant bodies about delays in issuing renewal orders to prevent such situations.
As a result of the circumstances, the Court issued a directive for the concerned authorities, including the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Secretary of Law and Justice, Government of India, to appear in person or designate senior officers to appear before the Court. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in Lucknow and the Commissioner of Income Tax-I were also required to appear to clarify the situation and assist the Court. The registry of the Court was instructed to send copies of the order to the relevant authorities promptly for compliance and further action.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
