2015 (7) TMI 369 - HC - Income Tax

High Court dismisses revenue's appeal against ITAT order for AY 2008-09, stresses need for legal diligence

Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Versus M/s. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for the assessment year 2008-09. The Court ... Appeal to high court - Earlier year appeal being dismissed for non-removal of office objections by the counsel - Held that:- We feel that the officers of revenue should keep track of the appeals/petitions to which they are parties before this Court till the proceedings are finally disposed of and also adopt measures to ensure that the law is equally applied across all assessees. While we are at this, we would also like to draw attention to the fact that we have noticed that many appeals are being filed in this Court which stand concluded either by earlier decisions of the Tribunal in case of some other assessee and no appeals there from are filed in this Court. The appeals are filed by the revenue mechanically without application of mind in respect of matters which are already concluded by decisions of this Court and accepted or earlier orders of the Tribunal which are accepted by the revenue. We would like a senior officer of the Revenue to take notice of the above and put on record the steps being taken to ensure that the officers of the revenue concerned with the issue in Court would keep themselves involved in the proceedings till such time this Court finally disposes of the appeal/writ as the case may be. Besides, also point out the steps being taken to ensure that law is equally applied. In case no affidavit is filed before the next date, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax should personally remain present and explain the steps being taken at their end. - Adjournment granted. Issues:1. Appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09.2. Dismissal of the revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2007-08.3. Lack of communication and follow-up leading to dismissal of appeals.4. Need for ensuring equal application of law across all assessees.5. Mechanically filing appeals without proper consideration.Analysis:1. The appeal before the Bombay High Court was filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contesting the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 9 November 2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. The impugned order of the Tribunal had followed a decision in the respondent-assessee's case for the previous assessment year, 2007-08.2. The Court noted that the revenue's appeal from the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 2007-08 was dismissed due to nonremoval of office objections. Despite the dismissal, the Assessing Officer was unaware of the status until directed by the Court. The appeal memo filed in the present case did not provide any details regarding the appeals from the Tribunal's orders for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, indicating a lack of due diligence.3. Highlighting the importance of proper follow-up and communication within the revenue department, the Court expressed concerns over the nonfiling of appeals and subsequent dismissal, leading to suspicions regarding the consistent application of the law across different assessees. The Court emphasized the necessity for officers to track appeals and ensure uniformity in legal treatment.4. The judgment underscored the need for revenue officers to actively engage in legal proceedings until their final disposal and to take measures to guarantee the uniform application of laws across all assessees. The Court observed a trend of mechanically filed appeals without adequate consideration of prior decisions, urging a more thoughtful approach to legal actions.5. Consequently, the Court directed a senior revenue officer to report on the steps being taken to address the issues raised, including ensuring officer involvement in court proceedings and promoting equal application of the law. Failure to provide an affidavit before the specified date would require the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to personally explain the measures being implemented to address the concerns raised in the judgment. The appeal was adjourned to allow for compliance with the Court's directives.