Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT RATES :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: due date for vat payment :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
News Headlines »
 CBDT releases Income Tax Return statistics for last two fiscals
 CBDT issues second round of Certificates of Appreciation to tax payers for their contribution towards Nation building
 FinMin looks at cut in corporation tax
 Draft Rules for prescribing the method of valuation of fair market value in respect of the trust or the institution-Chapter XII-EB of the Income-tax Act, 1961- reg.
 India is moving towards a flawed GST
 ICAI to organise two-day international conference in Hyderabad
 Here's how to calculate tax payable on your capital gains
 Income Tax calculations for the financial year 2016-17
 CPE Events 17 October - 22 October 2016
 High Court raps I-T Department for wrong tax demand
  CBDT signs 5 advance pricing pacts with Indian taxpayers

Streamlining the appeal process
June, 23rd 2007
Critics have pointed out that the amendment puts the appellants in a difficult situation. There can be cases where the appeal is delayed and such delay is not attributable at all to the taxpayer.

The right to appeal is the sine qua non of civilised legislation. There can be no levy of tax without the taxpayer being given the right to dispute the levy. In this sense, Chapter XX of the Income-Tax Act confers special rights to every taxpayer to file appeals against orders prejudicial to him.

However, Section 246 of the I-T Act, 1961 and its counterparts Section 246A specify the orders against which appeals will lie to the first appellate authority. If there is no provision for filing an appeal, the only recourse will be to approach the High Court with a writ petition seeking justice.

Enlargement of Appeals

The Finance Act, 2007 enlarges the list of appellate orders with effect from. June 1, 2007.

The law deems a person to be an assessee-in-default if he does not collect the whole or any part of tax or after collecting the same, fails to pay the same into government account.

Till now, there was no right of appeal against an order deeming such a person to be assessee-in-default. It is now laid down that he can prefer an appeal disputing such order made under Section 206C (6A).

Section 248 is now substituted by a new section. This concerns appeal by a person denying liability to deduct tax. Under the amendment, if there is an agreement or arrangement under which the tax deduction on income other than interest is to be borne by the person by whom the income is payable, he may appeal to the first appellate authority for a declaration that no tax was deductible by him as per the arrangement. There has been some liberalisation of time limit for filing appeals in such cases.

Section 80G

The law requires that institutions or funds engaged in charitable activities will require approval by the Administrative Commissioner of Income-Tax. In the nature of things, no appeal will lie against such an order to the CIT (Appeals). Hitherto, even the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was not empowered to hear appeals against orders passed by the Administrative Commissioner under Section 80G 5(vi) of the Act.

The only remedy was to approach the High Court with a writ petition seeking directions to the Commissioner. The Finance Act, 2007 removes the lacunae in this regard and provides for appeal against such orders.

Stay Orders

Several High Courts have decided that when an appeal is filed, the first appellate authority, namely, the CIT (Appeals), is empowered to grant stay of the disputed demand and dispose of the appeal by priority. However, in the present administrative set-up, no first appellate authority has bothered to invoke this power conferred on it by the High Court.

The affected taxpayers have to approach the Administrative Commissioner for stay. If there is no stay, the remedy is by way of writ petition to the High Court. The Tribunal comes into the picture for granting stay only when the first appellate authority disposes of the appeal. The Finance Act, 2007 now lays down that the Tribunal may grant stay of disputed demand for a period not exceeding 180 days and the Tribunal should dispose of the appeal within the period of stay specified in its order.

If the appeal is not disposed of within 180 days, the appellant before the Tribunal may file an application for extension of stay. He should show that the delay in the disposal of the appeal is not attributable to him.

The Tribunal then may pass an order extending the period of stay for a period not exceeding in all 365 days. The Tribunal should dispose of the appeal within this period. If it is not so disposed of, the stay shall stand automatically vacated.

Critics have pointed out that the amendment puts the appellants in a difficult situation. There can be cases where the appeal is delayed and such delay is not attributable at all to the taxpayer. There can be cases where the department seeks adjournment for want of records or for some other reason. Why should the appellant before the Tribunal be penalised in such cases by vacating stay?

It should have been provided in fairness that the stay would continue if it could be shown that the delay in the disposal of appeal is not attributable to the taxpayer appellant. Similar provisions under the Central Excise Act were considered by several Benches of the Tribunal and a uniform view was taken that stay will continue in all such cases till the disposal of the appeal.

This was also the view of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in B. Subhadra vs ITO (2004 85 TTJ Hyderabad 27). The Tribunal has been conferred with inherent powers of stay by the Supreme Court in the well-known Mohammed Kunhi (71 ITR 816) case.

The National Tax Tribunal Act contains a provision requiring payment of 25 per cent of disputed demand for admitting an appeal. The NTT has not taken off yet. It is not known why this provision is not incorporated into the present I-T Act.

T. C. A. Ramanujam
(The author is a former Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax.)

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Mission

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions