The income tax department is going through a difficult period. Faced with the uphill task of meeting the tax collection target, the department is also hamstrung by the drubbing in the high-profile Vodafone case and an unsuccessful raid at Ponty Chadha?s places among other things.
The central board of direct taxes (CBDT) is putting pressure on its zonal offices to collect as much as taxes as possible in the remaining two months of the fiscal.
In a letter written to chief commissioners earlier in the month, CBDT chairman Laxman Das had said that every commissioner and chief commissioner should ensure their targets are achieved.
The direct tax mop-up until January has grown by a mere 9.28% to R3.46 lakh crore, well below 19% growth required to take the collection for the full fiscal to the budgeted level of R5.32 lakh crore for 2011-12. This means the finance ministry has to mobilise up to R1.86 lakh crore to achieve the target in the last two months of the fiscal.
?Long working hours, frequent meetings and close look at tax payers assessment are usual these days. We want all demands to be
recovered by next month,? said a commissioner, who has not met his target for the current fiscal.
Besides, there has been major reshuffle in the CBDT, with investigation head S S Rana being given portfolio of member (income tax). This has raised eyebrows whether it is fallout of liquor baron Ponty Chadha case, where the department could not meet with much success. Recently, the income tax department conducted search operations in the premises of Chadha.
On Wednesday, TBC Rozara, who was holding additional charge of DG international taxation, has been given additional charge of range one. Rozara held the charge of DGIT for just 22 days.
The income department had also lost Vodafone case in the Supreme Cour as the apex court did not allow revenue department to have jurisdiction over the $11 billion cross-border deal between London-headquartered telecom major Vodafone International and Hong Kong-based Hutchison. Now, the department has filed a review petition against the judgement.
