Skip to content


The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Agriculture Produce Market Committee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantThe Commissioner of Income Tax
RespondentAgriculture Produce Market Committee
Excerpt:
.....authority dated 15th june, 2007. all his energy was used for passing an order of refund instead of fresh assessment of income. the aforesaid order of refund was slightly corrected by the a.o. on 8th july, 2008 (annexure j to the counter affidavit). this order of refund was quickly passed by the a.o. and lethargically, no fresh order was passed of assessment and a slight revision in the refund was taken in review by the commissioner of income tax under section 263 of the income tax act, 1961. the commissioner of income tax set aside the order passed by the a.o. dated 3rd september, 2007 as well as the slightly corrected order dated 8th july, 2008 which are at annexure a and j respectively to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. thus, the order dated 8th july, 2008 which has.....
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI T.A. No.52 of 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad … Appellant Versus Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad ... Respondent WITH T.A. No.53 of 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad … … Appellant Versus Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhanbad … Respondent ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- For the Appellant: Mr. Deepak Roshan For the Respondents: M/s. Biren Poddar, Darshana Poddar, Mahendra Chawdhary, Piyush Poddar, M.K. Ray, Shikesh Jha ------ 09/Dated:

05. h October, 2015 Per D.N. Patel, J T.A. No.53 of 2013

1) It appears that for the assessment year 2003-04, Assessment Officer passed an order of assessment on 10th February, 2006 which was challenged by the respondent-assessee in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 15th November, 2006 confirmed the order dated 10th February, 2006. These two orders are at Annexures A and D to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

2) The aforesaid order dated 15th November, 2006 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was challenged by the respondent in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the authority passed the order dated 15th June, 2007 quashing and setting aside the order passed by the A.O. as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax 2 (Appeals) dated 10th February, 2006 and 15th November, 2006 respectively and ordered that after considering the application under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, fresh order of assessment shall be passed by the A.O.

3) Now the bottom-neck starts. Now, the A.O. started working against the interest of Revenue. A.O. has not passed fresh order of assessment, but, he was eager enough and quick enough and has shown his all zeal to pass an order of refund on 3rd September, 2007 (Annexure F to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent). A.O. should have re-assessed the income keeping in mind the direction given by the authority dated 15th June, 2007. All his energy was used for passing an order of refund instead of fresh assessment of income. The aforesaid order of refund was slightly corrected by the A.O. on 8th July, 2008 (Annexure J to the counter affidavit). This order of refund was quickly passed by the A.O. and lethargically, no fresh order was passed of assessment and a slight revision in the refund was taken in review by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the order passed by the A.O. dated 3rd September, 2007 as well as the slightly corrected order dated 8th July, 2008 which are at Annexure A and J respectively to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. Thus, the order dated 8th July, 2008 which has revised refund order, was quashed and set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act, because, A.O. was eager for passing an order of refund instead of re-assessment. This eagerness was quashed and set aside.

4) Against this order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, the respondent preferred appeal before the authority against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the authority quashed and set aside the order of the the Commissioner which is dated 07.05.2013. 3

5) Thus, it appears that the A.O. has not yet passed any fresh order of assessment as per the direction given by the authority dated 15th June, 2007. It appears that the high ranking administrative officer of Income Tax Department is also sitting silent. Guidance should have been given to the A.O. that fresh order of assessment should have been passed instead of quickly passing an order of refund. It appears that it is now high time for the Commissioner of Income Tax to take action on administrative side. It is also high time for the Commissioner of Income Tax to have orientation courses for the A.Os. Too much ignorance has been shown by the A.O. or too much indifferent approach has been shown by the A.O. This cannot be tolerated by the Income Tax Department and too long waiting for the fresh order to be passed by the A.O. may amount connivance. 'Connivance' is a word used on a civil side, whereas, under the criminal law, it is known as 'conspiracy'. The huge amount of refund order has been passed by the A.O. on 8th July, 2008 which comes to Rs.92,93,751.00. This zeal of the A.O. immediately to pass order of refund and not to pass fresh order of assessment was watched by the high ranking administrative officers of Income Tax Department from 2008 till October, 2015. Action should have been initiated against such type of lethargic A.O. by the Commissioner of Income Tax.

6) It is now argued by the counsel for the respondent that even if the Assessment Officer wants to pass fresh order of assessment in pursuance of the direction given by the authority dated 15th June, 2007, it is now time barred.

7) Thus, it appears that deliberately the A.O. has allowed time to run, so that he has not to pass any fresh oder of assessment and the high ranking administrative officers of the Income-tax Department have also not given any guidance to the A.O.

8) Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, as well as to 4 the Commissioner of Income Tax, Luby Circle Road, Dhanbad, initially by fax and thereafter by registered post with A/D. T.A. No.52 of 2013

9) Similar are the facts over here in this Title Appeal and order of refund is of Rs.1,17,99,538.00 passed by A.O. instead of reassessment. In this case also, very quickly the order of refund was passed by the A.O., but, he has not yet passed fresh assessment order and the high ranking administrative officers of Income Tax Department are just simply watching the whole matter. T.A. No.52 of 2013 and T.A. No.53 of 2013

10) Counsels for both sides are seeking time to give paper book of this Tax Appeal.

11) Time, as prayed for, is granted.

12) Matter is adjourned to be enlisted on 27th November, 2015. (D. N. Patel, J) Manoj/ (Ratnaker Bhengra, J)


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //