High Court criticizes Income Tax Department for filing multiple petitions, directs explanation, and compliance.

The Bombay High Court addressed concerns regarding the Income Tax Department's filing of multiple petitions challenging the same order by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The court criticized the lack of coordination among department officers, leading to wastage of public resources. It directed the Principal Chief Commissioner to explain the reasons for filing multiple petitions and instructed the Petitioner's counsel to serve the order to the Commissioner for compliance. The court also forwarded the order to the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Tax for necessary action, adjourning the petitions pending the Commissioner's affidavit and compliance with the directives.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Challenging an order by the Income Tax Settlement Commission under Section 245D(6)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Filing multiple petitions by the Income Tax Department on the same cause of action; Lack of coordination among different Officers of the Income Tax Department; Waste of public money due to the filing of multiple petitions; Need for the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Department to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to the multiple petitions.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Bombay High Court involves multiple issues related to the actions of the Income Tax Department. The primary concern is the challenge to an order issued by the Income Tax Settlement Commission under a specific section of the Income Tax Act. The court notes that the department has filed multiple petitions challenging the same impugned order, which is an unusual practice and raises concerns regarding the coordination and decision-making within the department.

The court expresses disappointment in the lack of cooperation and unity among different Officers of the Income Tax Department, as evidenced by conflicting instructions given to their respective counsels. This lack of coordination is viewed as detrimental to the department's interests and leads to wastage of public resources, as multiple advocates are engaged to address the same issue.

The judgment emphasizes the need for the Principal Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax Department to provide an explanation for the circumstances that led to the filing of multiple petitions on the same cause of action. The court directs the Commissioner to clarify whether the department intends to pursue both petitions and reasons for such a decision. It underscores the importance of unity within the department and the realization that all Officers are part of a collective entity, the Income Tax Department.

Furthermore, the court directs the counsels representing the PetitionerRevenue to serve a copy of the order to the Principal Chief Commissioner for compliance. The Registry is also instructed to forward a copy of the order to the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Tax for information and necessary action. The judgment adjourns both petitions to a later date, awaiting the Commissioner's affidavit and ensuring compliance with the court's directives to address the issues raised regarding the filing of multiple petitions and lack of unity within the Income Tax Department.

---