Tuesday, April 26 2005 17:36 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

New Delhi: Expressing strong disapproval of the quiet burial given to cases of huge income tax demands against Railway Minister Laloo Prasad and his wife Rabri Devi, the Supreme Court today (Apr 26, 2005) sought to know how a Tribunal "hurriedly" dismissed the cases and how a Law Officer of the Centre had opined that no appeal should be filed in these cases.

A three-judge Bench comprising Justice S N Variava, Justice AR Lakshmanan and Justice S H Kapadia sought to know how the Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Patna decided within 10 days of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government assuming reins at the Centre, in favour of Prasad and his wife.

The order came on a PIL filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Sushil Kumar Modi and Janata Dal United (JDU) MP Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'Lallan' who through senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi alleged that the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) president "manipulated" the system and interfered with the course of justice in the fodder scam cases, disproportionate assets cases and the IT cases pending against him and Rabri Devi.

Surprised by the volume of cases decided by a Special Bench of the ITAT, the Bench asked Solicitor General G E Vahanvati to give details of the orders passed by the ITAT between June 21 and July 2 last year (2004), including the 136-page judgement in the case of Prasad and his wife.

On the ITAT accepting the voluntary returns filed by Prasad, the Bench asked as to how such a return could be treated, as "full and final" disclosure of his income between the assessment years 1986-1996.

It also asked the Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT) as to what has it done for the assessment years after 1996-97 against Prasad.

The Court was informed by the petitioners that Prasad and his wife had challenged the sanction for their prosecution in the disproportionate assets case before the Patna High Court long back but the petition remained undecided, as Bench after Bench were refusing to hear it.

The petitioners alleged that taking the ground that the appeal against sanction was pending, Prasad and his wife were taking adjournments in the trial of the case.

Taking note of the allegations, the apex Court asked the Patna High Court to constitute a Bench headed by Justice Aftab Ahmed to decide the appeal "as soon as possible and not later then 30 days from today".

When the Bench questioned the manner in which the ITAT, Patna disposed off so many cases, including the appeals filed by Prasad and his wife, the Solicitor General put up a spirited show by saying "we will overrule the opinions given for non-filing of the appeals against the ITAT orders and file appeals".

"We will not give an impression that it was a cover up operation," Vahanvati said. Expressing surprise over the opinion for non-filing of the appeal given by Additional Solicitor General Mohan Prasaran, the Bench asked "Does in every ITAT, appeal case go to an ASG for opinion?"

When the reply was in negative, the Bench said that even if the allegation that the ITAT bench was constituted in a "malafide" manner, the questions remain, as to how the ITAT could dispose of 24 IT cases against Prasad and his wife in a 136-page judgement in addition to disposing off 111 cases in a short span of 10 days.