Wednesday, October 30, 2013

SC News - Poltics; Sec 271 (1)(c)- Disclosure plus expln. bonafide et al


T N Ninan: Giving the Babu a spine

By asking that braces and struts be provided from all sides, will the Supreme Court be able to buttress the civil service spine so that it ..
contra ?>

SC judgment is neither novel nor landmark: Satyananda Mishra

Interview with former chief information commissioner and secretary of Department of Personnel and Training



 SC asks bureaucrats to not to take oral instructions from netas


June 16
Download: Deloitte_Consulting_penalty.pdf

S. 271(1)(c): The giving up of a bogus claim for deduction to eschew inquiry by AO/ TPO is not voluntary & bona fide & attracts levy of penalty

Note: While dealing with a stay petition in the same matter (351 ITR 160), the High Court had observed that the assessee had a “strong prima facie case



 SC to bureaucrats: Don't take oral instructions from netas



Apex court asks Centre, States to set fixed tenure for bureaucrats 

C >  Ref. Singh's lamentation has to be taken a specially serious and conscious note of . The 3 months time given by the SC, can, by any standard , be considered to be more than fair and reasonable; not short for duly honoring / implementing its verdict on the two lines of action the centre and states are directed to take. In the absence of any specific mention, it is anybody's guess whether in the court 's judgment , taking cue from the past experience, the governments have been sufficiently impressed/cautioned unequivocally as to what would be the consequence the directed /its empowered authorities might have to face , apart from the known 'contempt of court' as proven repeatedly not deterrent enough, not only collectively but personally, in the event of dilly-dallying and failing to give effect to the verdict, both in letter and spirit, and also within the time frame. 

Be that as it may, for the time being, a commoner, as always before, is obliged to keep wondering , - would not the scenario have been different, and in any case marked with notable improvement, should the all powerful constitutional bodies namely, the CAG, and the elected leaders , so also the heads (i.e. chairpersons), of the legislative bodies, who after all hold the master key for "the good governance", have taken it a serious business, requiring to take a call/be responsive to any such call as given by the judiciary.

KEY NOTE : Going by wisdom gathered in hindsight, in plenty, it is high time to realize that the usual and common thinking or the underlying faith in the belief that "the law will take its own course", - with respect to  all or any or more  contingencies well anticipated or foreseeable but left to the future to be attended to, - has never proved to have or yielded any pragmatic or positive and lasting solution.

< Worthwhile To cross-refer -

<<  It is important for the nation’s prestige. I had raised in August 2011 how such prestige issues were being used to milk the nation National interest and prestige – My foot!

        Supreme Court of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  @The Hindu

Pardon me but why is the SC making new laws? Their job is to interpret laws per the Constitution. It disturbs that in the past few decades, the SC has taken it upon itself to bring about "reform" by creating new rules, procedures and laws. They are constantly crossing a Maginot's line by entering into domains that belong mainly to the Legislature and in some cases, the Executive. Why aren't eminent thinkers, academicians and jurists wringing in agony over one branch of govt. co-opting the functions of the other two branches? As a citizen, I want the people's elected and nominated representatives in the LS and RS respectively (per the Constitution) to make new laws -- hence, they are known as "lawmakers". It is queasy to see judges making laws and initiate "reforms".

from:  Mahadheesh

A lone voice making noise (empty drum , of course, as is known, makes the most noise), infer-ably with suspected 'vested interest'; obviously without realizing in the least that by questioning the very propriety of the apex court in handing down its judgment,  commended and applauded by almost all the rest, has chosen to unwittingly betray own abject ignorance of the whole matter, right from its root. Proving it needs not much effort, if regard be had to the attendant fundamentals, through even a casual  brief look at the info. galore in public domain. For instance, -here >

Post-1980: an assertive Supreme Court

After Indira Gandhi lost elections in 1977, the new government of Morarji Desai, and especially law minister Shanti Bhushan (who had earlier argued for the detenues in the Habeas Corpus case), introduced a number of amendments making it more difficult to declare and sustain an emergency, and reinstated much of the power to the Supreme Court. It is said that the Basic Structure doctrine, created in Kesavananda, was strengthened in Indira Gandhi's case and set in stone in Minerva Mills.
The Supreme Court's creative and expansive interpretations of Article 21 (Life and Personal Liberty), primarily after the Emergency period, have given rise to a new jurisprudence of public interest litigation that has vigorously promoted many important economic and social rights (constitutionally protected but not enforceable) including, but not restricted to, the rights to free education, livelihood, a clean environment, food and many others. Civil and political rights (traditionally protected in the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Indian Constitution) have also been expanded and more fiercely protected. These new interpretations have opened the avenue for litigation on a number of important issues. It is interesting to note that the pioneer of the expanded interpretation of Article 21, Chief Justice P N Bhagwati, was also one of the judges who heard the ADM Jabalpur case, and held that the Right to Life could not be claimed during Emergency.

Key Note:  it is, in one's well-founded conviction, too late in the day to even address any such ill-conceived comment, on a typically stand-alone or in-box outlook, without doing any proper homework or study as expected; especially, by one who has patently not even any basic knowledge and clear understanding of the powers of the SC, as the apex court of the land. Such powers, -contrary to the prima facie absurd and glaringly arrogant view sought to be aired in a cavalier fashion, marked by an unhidden outburst of  'ego', - have to be traced and tackled to/by the, and by now, largely accepted and well settled proposition; that is,  that the SC does have wide powers to interpret, not only for adjudicating on any issue raised wrt a statutory provision, but also wrt a provision in the Constitution. Except that, the court has to adopt two distinct approaches founded on certain laudable principles. To know what those are, - Hear what the Retired CJI has to say , HERE >

The most  sensible answer of all, to any of the FAQs or FRDs, may be found to have been echoed as clearly and loudly as feasible, more so eminently, besides in several contexts of, mainly and concisely in the concluding portion of, the eminent judge's incisive speech. 

<< Rejoinder:

When just looked up the corresponding Report in The Hindu, regrettably noted it to have been already closed for comments , obviously because of the unusually  large number of  responses already posted. Be that as it may, a particular comment posted thereat was seen to be too obnoxiously misguided and misleading, to provoke a useful feedback rejoinder. The referred comment, in substance, has gone on to question the very propriety of the SC in having handed down the subject verdict. Ostensibly, what its writer has tragically failed  to appreciate is that the SC as the apex court has powers to ‘interpret’, besides  the laws-  ‘statutes’, also interpret the ‘constitutional law’, whenever required, for deciding an issue entailing  and impacting / impairing what is commonly known as ‘public interest’, for the ‘common good’. For enlightenment, the video-taped speech of former CJI, (G P x) S H Kapadia available in public domain (i.e. the popular websites) may have to be heard.
The culprit really responsible for the unsavory  lone  comment  is nothing but that write-up wrongly calling / inappropriately describing the court  verdict as "the major reform".

To Know of the Legend , SHK >

SH Kapadia, end of an era: India's greatest ever CJI or missed ... › India
Sep 29, 2012 - Chief Justice SH Kapadia's tenure has been one of the most exciting in history. He has delivered in spades even while curtailing excessive ...

 Taxation >

MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

October 31st, 2013
Download: max_penalty_voluntary_surrender.pdf

Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271(1)(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bona fide and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed