| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1976 SLG 43 1976 SLD 43 (1977) 35 TAX 208 |
Civil Appeal No. 318 of 1971, decision dated: 25-9-1975
V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. C. GUPTA, .JJ
S. P. Nayar and B. B. Ahuja, Advocates, for the appellants. S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate (H. S. Parihar and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, with him), for the respondent
Income Tax OFFICER, A-WARD CALCUTTA, AND ANOTHER
VS
RAM NARAYAN BHOJNAGARWALA
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section:
Income Tax Authorities--Duty to avoid delays in determining questions .income Tax Officer directed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to determine the ownership of bank deposit-No finding for over five years-Whether amounted to indiscipline subversive of rule of law-Held yes Law must move quickly not merely in the courts but also before tribunals and officers charged with the duty of expeditions administration of justice so that unnecessary litigation may he avoided. Where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of income Tax had directed the income Tax Officer to determine the real ownership of a bank deposit which was in dispute, in September, 1970, and till October, 1975, the Income Tax Officer had not determined the real ownership, such delay amounts to indiscipline subversive of the rule of law and defeats the whole purpose of creating quasi-judicial tribunals calculated to produce quick results. ORDER [This judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA Iyer J.]- This is really a case where litigation would have been avoided, had the concerned Income Tax Officer carried out the directions issued by the Appellant Assistant Commissioner, with quick despatch to determine the ownership of the deposit in the bank account as between the respondent before us and his nephew, Madanlal. The Facts: There was a bank account in which a huge sum was seen as lying in deposit. The assessing authority-proceeded on the footing that the amount represented the income of one Madanlal, in whose name the bank account stood. He contested his Ownership and urged that really this sum belonged to his uncle who is the respondent before us. Any way his contention was overruled by the income Tax Officer, but, in appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the order and directed that the Income Tax Officer do determine the real ownership of the bank deposit. This was done in September, 1970, It is admitted before us that, although we are in October 1975, the Income Tax Officer has not yet determined the real ownership of the deposit as between the uncle and the nephew, There is no valid reason why the Income Tax Officer should have delayed so long and indeed administrative…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492