Page 24 - Banking Finance December 2020
P. 24

LEGAL UPDATE

             removal from service, of a bank  (ii) The appellate authority while en-  Various case laws were cited on behalf
             manager for sanctioning loan to    hancing the punishment consid-  of the appellants  in support of the
             his spouse in contravention of ser-  ered charges which were not  above contentions and it was pleaded
             vice rule, is just and proper espe-  proved in the enquiry.       that the punishment of removal be set
             cially when the cheque issued pur-  (iii) The order of removal is unsustain-  aside and the punishment imposed by
             suant to the loan was not          able as no personal hearing was  the disciplinary authority be restored.
             encashed?
                                                given to the appellant by the ap-
         2. Whether the enhancement of          pellate authority before enhance- Court separates IT wings
             punishment by the appellate au-    ment of punishment.            fighting each other
             thority without giving a personal  (iv) The order of enhancement of pun-
             hearing to the appellant was in                                   Recently, the Delhi High Court deliv-
                                                ishment by the appellate author-  ered a judgment in the case, Commis-
             order?
                                                ity is not just when it is not recom-  sioner of Income Tax vs Authority for
         3. Whether the appellant, having       mended by the disciplinary author-  Advance Ruling, Income Tax. CIT filed
             filed appeal after the period of   ity and that too in the appeal filed  a writ petition claiming that it alone
             limitation, can contend that his   by the delinquent employee.    had jurisdiction in deciding a tax mat-
             appeal being time barred should
                                            (v) Though loan was granted by the  ter involving a foreign firm, Crocs Eu-
             not have been considered by the    appellant to his wife under a  rope BV. It argued that its  sister
             appellate authority?
                                                Scheme meant for educated unem-  organisation, AAR, passed an order
         4. Whether taking into account of un-  ployed youth in violation of Service  violating the jurisdictional bar under
             proved charges in the departmen-   Rules, the bank cheque issued by  Section 245R(2) of the Income Tax Act.
             tal enquiry by the appellate au-   the appellant was not encashed, it  Dismissing the petition, the court
             thority while enhancing the pun-   was only an attempt and no loss  stated that the questions before the
             ishment in appeal is in order?     has been caused to the bank.   two income tax authorities were differ-

         Arguments on behalf of the appel-  (vi) Therefore, impugned action of the  ent. CIT was looking into discrepancy
         lant                                   respondent bank in enhancing the  in the declared income during random
         (i) The appeal should not have been    punishment to removal is unjust,  scrutiny. AAR was looking into royalty
             considered by the appellate au-    unwarranted, violative of statu-  for use of intellectual property in the
             thority as the same was time       tory rights as also the principles of  context of double taxation avoidance
             barred.                            natural justice.               treaty with the Netherlands. T



             Date for availing direct tax dispute resolution scheme till Dec 31

           The government has extended the last date for availing the direct tax dispute resolution scheme till December 31,
           2020, the finance ministry notified. Taxpayers willing to settle their tax disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas
           Act can file their declarations till December 31, and will be mandated to pay the settled tax amount by March 31,
           2021, with a complete waiver of interest and penalty. After April 1, 2021, a 10% higher amount will have to be paid.
           Further, where arrears relate to disputed interest or penalty only, then 25% of the amount is to be paid by March 31,
           2021 and 30% after April 1, 2021.  The extension has been provided "in order to provide further relief to the taxpay-
           ers desirous of settling disputes under the scheme," the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) said.
           Finance secretary Ajay Bhushan Pandey has asked tax officials to expedite the Scheme which, he said, is highly ben-
           eficial to the taxpayers, after reviewing the progress made so far by the income tax department on the scheme in a
           high level meeting. "We need to advance the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme with greater persuasion and perseverance
           and must reach out to the taxpayers to facilitate all necessary handholding," he said.



            24 | 2020 | DECEMBER                                                           | BANKING FINANCE
   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29