News
The Supreme Court has rejected the salary charge office for putting forth "deceptive expressions" about the carelessness of claims, while it is clarifying that the Supreme Court isn't an "outing spot" and it can not be dealt with.
A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur fixed the cost of Rs 10 lakh on the department and said that it was "shocked" that the Center has taken this matter "accidentally" through the Income Tax Commissioner.
The bench, including Justice S. Abdul Nazir and Deepak Gupta, also noted in their order that a petition was filed by the IT department after a delay of 596 days for delay and "inadequate and unmanageable explanation" was given for delay.
"Do not do this, the Supreme Court is not a picnic spot, do you treat the Supreme Court of India in this way?" The Bench told the department's counsel.
The bench said, "You can not treat the Supreme Court in this way."
The apex court found that in the petition filed by Income Tax Commissioner, Ghaziabad, the department has said that a similar case filed in 2012 was pending in the court.
However, it was noted that the matter pending by the department was decided by the Supreme Court in September 2012.
"In other words, the petitioners have given a completely misleading statement before this court, we are shocked by the fact that the Union of India has taken this matter so casually through the Commissioner of Income Tax," rejecting the petition While in the court, the bench said in its order.
"As we have seen, there is insufficient explanation in a misleading statement about the delay of 596 days in filing petition and the negligence of such a civil appeal."
It has been said that the cost of Rs 10 lakh will be deposited within four weeks with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and the amount will be used for the issues of juvenile justice.
The department had transferred the judgment of Allahabad High Court to the apex court challenging the August 29, 2016 judgment, which had rejected its appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order.
The petition before the High Court relates to the various assessment years related to the Hapur Pilkhuja Development Authority (HPDA), an institution formed under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
HPDA had applied for registration under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which relates to the procedure for registration.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad had rejected the application in June 2006 and considering that the HPDA is not an organization working for charitable purposes.
After this, HPDA had contacted ITAT, who allowed its appeal against the order of income tax commissioner and said that it is entitled to registration.
The Supreme Court rejected the Income Tax Department for 'misleading statement', saying that it is not a picnic spot
The Supreme Court rejected the Income Tax Department for 'misleading statement', saying that it is not a picnic spot
The Bench of Supreme Court reduced the cost of Rs 10 lakh on the Income Tax Department and said it was "shocked" that through the Income Tax Commissioner, the Center has taken this case "accidentally". |
| The Supreme Court rejected the Income Tax Department for 'misleading statement', saying that it is not a picnic spot |
The Supreme Court has rejected the salary charge office for putting forth "deceptive expressions" about the carelessness of claims, while it is clarifying that the Supreme Court isn't an "outing spot" and it can not be dealt with.
A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur fixed the cost of Rs 10 lakh on the department and said that it was "shocked" that the Center has taken this matter "accidentally" through the Income Tax Commissioner.
The bench, including Justice S. Abdul Nazir and Deepak Gupta, also noted in their order that a petition was filed by the IT department after a delay of 596 days for delay and "inadequate and unmanageable explanation" was given for delay.
"Do not do this, the Supreme Court is not a picnic spot, do you treat the Supreme Court of India in this way?" The Bench told the department's counsel.
The bench said, "You can not treat the Supreme Court in this way."
The apex court found that in the petition filed by Income Tax Commissioner, Ghaziabad, the department has said that a similar case filed in 2012 was pending in the court.
However, it was noted that the matter pending by the department was decided by the Supreme Court in September 2012.
"In other words, the petitioners have given a completely misleading statement before this court, we are shocked by the fact that the Union of India has taken this matter so casually through the Commissioner of Income Tax," rejecting the petition While in the court, the bench said in its order.
"As we have seen, there is insufficient explanation in a misleading statement about the delay of 596 days in filing petition and the negligence of such a civil appeal."
It has been said that the cost of Rs 10 lakh will be deposited within four weeks with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and the amount will be used for the issues of juvenile justice.
The department had transferred the judgment of Allahabad High Court to the apex court challenging the August 29, 2016 judgment, which had rejected its appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order.
The petition before the High Court relates to the various assessment years related to the Hapur Pilkhuja Development Authority (HPDA), an institution formed under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
HPDA had applied for registration under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which relates to the procedure for registration.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad had rejected the application in June 2006 and considering that the HPDA is not an organization working for charitable purposes.
After this, HPDA had contacted ITAT, who allowed its appeal against the order of income tax commissioner and said that it is entitled to registration.
Previous article
Next article
Leave Comments
Post a Comment