accept a stay application and not immediately give acknowledgement of
its receipt is unacceptable. The least that is expected of an civil servant
is to be fair and civil. In the absence of the above, his conduct is not
one becoming of an Officer belonging to the prestigious Indian Revenue
Service. The least that is expected of an Officer is that when a person
files an application / letter, which is accepted by him, an
acknowledgement should be forthwith given to the party filing the
application or letter. In case he refuses to accept the letter he should
endorse on the letter / application the reason why it is not being
accepted with a line or two for the refusal to accept. In case he does
accept it and give an acknowledgment he can deal with the applications
/ letters as is appropriate in accordance with law. We believe that
what has happened in this case is an aberration. However, the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax would ensure that his Officers do not
behave in such an high handed and unfair manner, not expected of civil
servants.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 526 OF 2016
Piramal Fund Management Pvt. Ltd.
v/s.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Mumbai & Ors.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &
A.K. MENON, J.J.
DATED : 17th MARCH, 2016.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed primarily against the refusal of the Assessing Officer to
accept the petitioner's application for stay dated 17th February, 2016.
2. The Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 201213 had by
order dated 19th January, 2016 raised a demand of Rs.52.08 crores.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner had filed an
appeal on 24th February, 2016 to the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals). Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Assessing Officer
Uday S. Jagtap
on 18th February, 2016 inter alia with its application for stay in terms of
Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This was along with an
application dated 17th Februarcy, 2016 for stay of penalty proceedings.
The Assessing Officer accepted the stay application for demand and
also application for stay of penalty proceedings. However, the
Assessing Officer gave acknowledgement only of application for stay of
the penalty proceedings but did not provide an acknowledgment of
having accepted and received the stay application dated 17th February,
2016. This action on the part of the Assessing Officer led the petitioner
to file this petition on 23rd February, 2016 and also serve it upon the
Assessing Officer on 23rd February, 2016 itself. Immediately thereafter,
the Assessing Officer provided an acknowledgment to the stay
application in terms of Section 220(6) of the Act dated 17th February,
2016 on 23rd February, 2016 to the petitioner.
3. The Assessing Officer has filed an affidavitinreply wherein he
has stated that in view of the on going discussion with the Officers of
the petitioner, there was no occasion for him to refuse to acknowledge
the stay application. He further states that the petitioner should have
filed its application for stay at the ASK center located in Aayakar
Bhavan, where the Income Tax Department has made arrangements for
acceptance of tapal addressed to all the officers located at Aayakar
Bhavan.
4. We find that in his affidavit, the Assessing Officer states all
applications are to be filed only with the ASK centre, yet he gives
acknowledgement of the application for stay of penalty when handed
over to him. Further, he also gives the acknowledgement on 23rd
February, 2016 of the stay application dated 17th February, 2016
received by him on 18th February, 2016. This acknowledgement on 23rd
February, 2013 is given immediately on the Writ Petition being served
upon him. Thus, the explanation offered in the affidavit is at variance
with his conduct. Thus, the affidavit is not acceptable.
5. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Revenue contends that
in any case, no coercive proceedings were resorted to by him. Thus,
there was no malafide. This is hardly any consolation as in the
absence of the party having an acknowledged copy of the stay, the party
would never know when the coercive proceedings would commence
and at all time be on tenterhooks.
6. We find this conduct on the part of the Assessing Officer to
accept a stay application and not immediately give acknowledgement of
its receipt is unacceptable. The least that is expected of an civil servant
is to be fair and civil. In the absence of the above, his conduct is not
one becoming of an Officer belonging to the prestigious Indian Revenue
Service. The least that is expected of an Officer is that when a person
files an application / letter, which is accepted by him, an
acknowledgement should be forthwith given to the party filing the
application or letter. In case he refuses to accept the letter he should
endorse on the letter / application the reason why it is not being
accepted with a line or two for the refusal to accept. In case he does
accept it and give an acknowledgment he can deal with the applications
/ letters as is appropriate in accordance with law. We believe that
what has happened in this case is an aberration. However, the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax would ensure that his Officers do not
behave in such an high handed and unfair manner, not expected of civil
servants.
7. Be that as it may, the stay application is still pending decision.
Normally, we would have let the Assessing Officer decide the same.
However, looking at the manner in which the petitioner has been dealt
with by the Assessing Officer in regard to its stay application dated 17th
February, 2016, it would be in the interest of justice that the application
for stay filed by the petitioner be heard by another Officer different
from the Assessing Officer i.e. respondent no.1 herein. The Officer to
deal with the petitioner's stay application dated 17th July, 2016 is to be
selected / nominated by the Revenue.
8. At this stage, Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Revenue
states that the stay application would now be disposed of by Additional
Commissioner of the Income Tax, i.e. respondent no.2 in the present
petition.
9. Accordingly, the respondent no.2 is directed to deal with the
petitioner's application for stay in accordance with law.
10. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
(A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment