IT : Filing of appeal with complete knowledge of its fate by the Revenue only reflects the mischievous adamancy to attempt to mislead the Tribunal and waste the time of the Court and the officers concerned.
• Filing of an appeal by an Assessing Officer ('AO') is a right which is vested by the statue. However, same should be exercised by applying proper due diligence in order to avoid any inappropriate litigations.
• In the instant case, revenue made an attempt to justify the filing of the appeals by referring to the fact that the relief was granted on the basis of the remand report dated 06.06.2012 thereby consciously ignoring making reference to the second remand report dated 22.06.2012. In the second remand report, the AO accepted that he had verified the loan taken by assessee.
• Since the claim has been given up in the second remand report by the AO himself, he cannot claim to be aggrieved by the findings arrived at relying upon his own remand report. The CIT(A) has accepted the assessee's claim based on the strength of the second remand report. Reference to this material document, i.e., second remand report in the grounds raised is curiously missing. This omission appears to be deliberated and leads us to conclude that the revenue has consciously indulged in engaging in meritless litigation.
• Once the AO in second remand report had already communicated that the enquiries made after issuing notices under Section 133(6) to the parties/persons who had confirmed the assessee's version and the AO concluded that the loans taken stood verified. No further legitimate grievance can then be said to remain for examination by the AO.
• This deliberate, mischievous and selective reference to facts by such responsible persons grievously damages the public faith and belief in the honest fair play of the tax administration.
• Filing of appeal with complete knowledge of its fate by the Revenue only reflects the mischievous adamancy to attempt to mislead the Tribunal and waste the time of the Court and the officers concerned.
• Departmental officers had willfully and deliberately failed to exercise their powers mindfully as required of them as per law and abused government machinery to initiate a litigation which entails financial costs and tarnishes the image of the Department and also strains the government resources.
• Appeal was a prime example of meritless litigation for reasons best known to the few departmental officers having powers of directing authorization for filing appeals.
• ITAT desist from awarding costs considering the statement of CIT that due care shall be taken in future. ITAT hoped that having invited the attention of the chairman, CBDT to this grave assault on the trust and reputation of fair play enjoyed by the tax administration the malaise is immediately addressed.
[2015] 60 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'E'
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-12, New Delhi
v.
R.P.G. Credit & Capital Ltd.
|
.png)
