Interaction with the Honourable Finance Secretary Dr. Hasmukh Adhia and Honorable Shri Sushil Chandra Chairman CBDT on 14th December 2017 at Mumbai
We are pleased to state that, for the first time, the Government has taken very positive step inviting the tax professional organizations and tax professionals to have very interactive meeting with Honourable Finance Secretary, to consider suggestions on the Direct and Indirect taxes as a part of the budget preparatory exercise for the Financial Year 2018.
On behalf of the Federation, Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate, presented the view of the Federation on Direct taxes, Mrs. Nikita R. Baddheka, Advocate, and C.A. Janak Vaghani presented the view of the Federation on GST. For attracting investments in India, one of the major road block is delay in disposal of matters before various forums. The Federation has suggested various conceptual suggestions.
Some of the important suggestions are as follows:
1. Accountability in tax administration.
2. All orders of the Commissioner may be made Appealable to Tribunal.
3. Single member of the ITAT may be authorized to decide the matter though the assessed income is more than 50 lakhs, if penalty, interest or addition may be less than 10 lakhs. Alternatively if assessed income, interest or penalty in dispute is less than Rs. 20 lakhs, the SMC may be authorized to decide the matter.
4. Direct appeal to Supreme Court from the order of the Tribunal where important question of law is involved which is affecting large number of assesses in various states.
5. E Benches of the Supreme Court linking all the High Courts and matters will be heard from the respective Court
6. Publishing all the issues pending before various High Courts by the CBDT.
7. Time limit to CIT( A) to pass the orders.
8. Advance ruling for resident assessee.
9. Special courts to deal with prosecution matters on Direct and indirect taxes in time bound manner.
10. Provisions regarding appointment of members of the ITAT on tenure basis may be deleted.
Suggestions by Others
1. Turnover limit of LLP may be increased and LLP may also be given an option to adopt presumptive taxation.
2. Transfer pricing provision may not be made applicable to non – residents and clarification may be issued for use of IPR which are registered in both the countries.
3. MAT provision may not be made applicable to Sick companies.
4. Dividend distribution tax may be removed or alternatively may be reduced.
To Recall
One of the disputes/issues that has been unduly prolonged for years, with no finality in sight as yet, pertains to the construction to be placed on / interpretation of,- sec 143 (1) /(2) and sec 147/148 of the IT Act.
Attention may be invited to the related Posts, selectively @-
> http://www.itatonline.org/articles_new/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-law-of-reopening-of-assessments-under-sections-147-to-153-of-the-income-tax-act-1961/
(Comments thereon)
> https://www.facebook.com/swaminathanv3/posts/1525085687567712?pnref=story
> https://www.facebook.com/swaminathanv3/posts/1525085687567712?pnref=story
Perhaps, this is a matter of vexing controversy prolonged for too long, to deserve to be accorded a priority, and finality,in the light of the judicial opinion, mostly in taxpayers’ favour.
As suggested and reiterated on earlier occasions such a finality might better be accomplished, by a suitable amendment of the law, clarifying the correct position, once for all; thereby put an end to a prolongation of the issue- a non-issue so to say-any more/- longer !
1= AO sud not exceed his mandate. He sud only inspect whatever is mandated either by ITAT, when referred back to AO for looking into a, b, c.only, not e, f, g…
2= My AY 10-11 is reopened on ground of 2 penny stocks’ LTCG, but AO is looking into STCG, trading, speculation, expenses etc as he has unlimited powers. AO sud demand details of the 2 penny stocks only. Asking for 3 pages of details is unfair. I am sure I have done no LTCG in penny stock
3= Pls ask all AO to be a Judicial officer and not an inspector.
TAXES LEVIED ON DEEMED BASIS LIKE DEEMED LETTING VALUE FOR VACANT PROPERTIES HELD IN STOCK OR HELD AS INVESTMENT SHOULD BE DONE AWAY WITH. TAX SHOULD BE ON REAL INCOME AND NOT ON NOTIONAL INCOME. PRESENT SYSTEM IS RELIC OF COLONIAL RULE OF OPPRESSION AND HARRASMENT. FROM WHERE DOES GOVT. EXPECT THE TAX PAYER TO PAY TAX ON DEEMED INCOME? IT HURTS, SPECIALLY THE RETIRED CITIZENS WHO INVEST IN PROPERTIES TO EARN RENT BUT SOMEHOW REMAIN VACANT FOR WHOLE YEAR.
RIDER Suggestion No.2 that ‘ALL'(implying- regardless of ‘quantum’)first appellate Orders should be made appeal-able to ITAT may, if were to be accepted, will prove a retrograde step!
Incidentally,in the larger interests of the entire profession- CAs or lawyers, and the clientele,-minimum details of all such suggestions made by any representative body such as,the Federation and ICAI, or any one else, indicating the intended objective, might have to be given due publicity at the earliest; thereby, providing an opportunity also to the taxpayers community, in case it has any valid contribution to make.
OFFHAND
To be rightly marked as a ‘positive step’.
Had the Suggestions listed to have been made by the Federation been somewhat in greater details, that would have been more purposeful.
For instance, the suggestions Nos. 4 and 6, as selected,are seen to be lacking in clarity.
To one’s understanding,both these suggestions are inter-linked /-connected. And the essence of the underlying object is to avoid multiplicity of court battles,through consolidation of cases and issues, basically identical, which are amenable to be adjudicated upon in one-go,without any difficulty.
As regards the envisaged difficulty,one has in mind briefly these:
Should the given issue be a pure and simple “question of law”, not a mixed question (i.e.of law and facts), or a “substantial question of law” adjudication whereof would not depend upon “the facts and circumstances” of each of the cases,then consolidation will be an ideal solution.
With that in focus, the CBDT may have to,after collecting and compiling all the data of pending issues/cases,from all benches of the ITAT and the HCs, critically examine and recommend for consolidation and adjudication by the SC as considered appropriate.
Further, for obvious reasons,such an exercise will be called for, not for once, but periodically, say- every 12 months; that means consolidation and disposal would have to be carried out in batches.
Law Experts in field practice – in ITAT or HCs, may have a valid contribution to make in that respect, by sharing their independent thoughts and eminent input on the indicated or other pragmatic lines, so as to be of effective and purposeful assistance to the CBDT in the matter.