T-Unwanted litigations caused revenue to pay cost to assessee; HC slams revenue for unnecessary litigations
IT: Where assessee was driven to unnecessary litigation even after concluding order had been passed in her case, cost was to be awarded against revenue for such a conduct
■■■
[2013] 36 taxmann.com 49 (Delhi)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Ms. Chain
v.
Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Direct Taxes*
BADAR DURREZ AHMED AND R.V. EASWAR, JJ.
W.P.(C) NO. 2045 OF 2012
APRIL 8, 2013
Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court - Appeals to [Unnecessary litigation] - Whether where assessee was driven to unnecessary litigation even after concluding order had been passed in her case, cost was to be awarded against revenue for such a conduct - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]
Piyush Kaushik for the Appellant. Kamal Sawhney, Sabib and J.P. Singh for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. It is an admitted fact that since the last date of hearing all the jewellery has been returned to the petitioner at Ahmadabad. Now, nothing remains with the respondents. However, since the petitioners were driven to litigation to retrieve the jewellery even after the order was passed by the CIT (Appeals) as far back as on 17-05-2010, we feel that the petitioner ought to be awarded costs. Thus, while disposing of this writ petition, as no further directions are necessary, we direct I that the respondents, in particular, respondent No.6 shall pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner within two weeks.
2. The writ petition stands disposed of.
3. All pending applications stands disposed of.
SUNIL
No comments:
Post a Comment