Showing posts with label Section 271(1)(c). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Section 271(1)(c). Show all posts

Wednesday, October 13, 2021

S. 271(1)(c), S.274, Court (Cuttack)(Trib.), Penalty-Concealment-Inapplicable words in notice not struck off-Penalty order not specifying exactly under which limb penalty is levied-Penalty is held to be unjustified. [S. 274]

 Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S.274

Court (Cuttack)(Trib.)

Penalty-Concealment-Inapplicable words in notice not struck off-Penalty order not specifying exactly under which limb penalty is levied-Penalty is held to be unjustified. [S. 274]

The AO levied penalty which was confirmed by the CIT(A) On appeal the Tribunal held that notices under S. 274 read with S. 271(1)(c) issued to the assessee showed the inapplicable words in the notice had not been struck out. Even the last line of the notice only spoke of S. 271 and did not mention of S. 271(1)(c). The penalty order was based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice did not specify exactly under which limb the penalty under S. 271(1)(c) had been initiated. The AO was not sure under which limb of provisions of S. 271 the assessee was liable for penalty. The penalty levied under S. 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. (AY.2011-12)

Dibyajyoti Chemicals P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 40 (SN) (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c), S. 22, 133A, Court (Jaipur)(Trib.), Penalty-Concealment-Survey-Surrender of income-No difference between returned income and assessed income-Penalty is not leviable-As regards non disclosure of rental income-Penalty is leviable. [S. 22, 133A]

Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 22, 133A

Court (Jaipur)(Trib.)

Penalty-Concealment-Survey-Surrender of income-No difference between returned income and assessed income-Penalty is not leviable-As regards non disclosure of rental income-Penalty is leviable. [S. 22, 133A]

Tribunal held that the income of Rs. 3 crores as surrendered during the survey was duly declared in the return. The applicability of Explanation 5A is exclusively in the case of search and seizure action under S. 132 and the deeming provision cannot be applied in the case of survey conducted under S. 133A. When there was no difference between the returned income and the assessed income so far as the amount of Rs. 3 crores it would not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Therefore the penalty was deleted. However with regard to the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the addition of Rs. 10,565 on account of nondisclosure of the rental income since it was a clear case of concealment of particulars of his income, the penalty levied by the AO to the extent of the addition of Rs. 10,565 was upheld. (AY. 2016-17) Rajendra Shringi v. Dy.CIT (2020) 77 ITR 85 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c), S. 40(a)(ia), 153A, Court (Chennai)(Trib.), Penalty-Concealment-Addition on estimate basis-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified-Un accounted cash transaction-Levy of penalty is held to be justified-Disallowances u/s. 40(a)(ia)-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 40(a)(ia), 153A]

 Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 40(a)(ia), 153A

Court (Chennai)(Trib.)

Penalty-Concealment-Addition on estimate basis-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified-Un accounted cash transaction-Levy of penalty is held to be justified-Disallowances u/s. 40(a)(ia)-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 40(a)(ia), 153A]

Following the ratio in CIT v Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty (2002) 258 ITR 494 (Mad.) (HC), the Tribunal held that addition on estmimate basis, does not attract the penalty. As regards. un accounted cash transaction the Levy of penalty is held to be justified. Similarly disallowances u/s 40(a) (ia) which the assessee failed to add while filing the return u/s 153A the levy of penalty is held to be justified. (AY. 2007-08)

S & P Foundations (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 186 DTR 122 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c), Explanation 5A, Court (Jaipur)(Trib.), Penalty-Concealment-Initiation of penalty proceedings on both charges-Penalty levied on a specific charge of concealing particulars of income-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [Explanation 5A]

 Section :- S. 271(1)(c), Explanation 5A

Court (Jaipur)(Trib.)

Penalty-Concealment-Initiation of penalty proceedings on both charges-Penalty levied on a specific charge of concealing particulars of income-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [Explanation 5A]

The Tribunal held that the assessee was made aware of both the charges at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and while finally levying the penalty, the Assessing Officer had given a specific finding that it was a case of concealment of particulars of income. This was not a case of lack of opportunity to the assessee or lack of application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. It was not the case of the assessee that the charge of concealment of particulars of income was not attracted in the facts of the present case. The Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and this had been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the assessee’s contention that it had suo motu filed the revised return disclosing unexplained investment in jewellery found during the course of search, on the ground that such return had been filed subsequent to the date of search. The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. (AY. 2012-13)

Sarla Mundra (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2020 81 ITR 65 (SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c), S. 254(1), Court (Bom.)(HC), Penalty-Concealment-Order of Tribunal set aside the appeal to CIT(A) is held to be valid. [S. 254(1)]

 Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 254(1)

Court (Bom.)(HC)

Penalty-Concealment-Order of Tribunal set aside the appeal to CIT(A) is held to be valid. [S. 254(1)]

Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that the order of Tribunal directing the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit is held to be valid. (ITA No. 52 of 2014 dt 4-2-2020) (AY.1997-98)

Gangadhar Narsingas Agrawal (HUF) v. ACIT (2020) 188 DTR 119 / 317 CTR 138 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c), [S. 145], Court (SC), Penalty-Concealment-Mercantile method of accounting-Recovery of loan was doubtful-interest has shown as income-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 145]

Section :- S. 271(1)(c), [S. 145] 

Court (SC)

Penalty-Concealment-Mercantile method of accounting-Recovery of loan was doubtful-interest has shown as income-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 145]

Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that even though assessee had followed mercantile system of accounting not offering the interest on doubtful debt, levy of penalty is not justified.

CIT v. Hiralal Amritlal Parekh & Co. (2020) 117 taxmann.com 125 (Guj.)(HC)

Editorial: Revenue was granted two weeks time to refile SLP and, in case of revenue's failure to do so, SLP would be treated as dismissed for non-prosecution CIT v. Hiralal Amritlal Parekh & Co. (2020) 272 Taxman 96 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c), Court (SC), Penalty-Concealment-Mercantile method of accounting-Recovery of loan was doubtful-interest has shown as income-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 145]

Section :- S. 271(1)(c)

Court (SC)

Penalty-Concealment-Mercantile method of accounting-Recovery of loan was doubtful-interest has shown as income-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 145]

Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that even though assessee had followed mercantile system of accounting not offering the interest on doubtful debt, levy of penalty is not justified.

CIT v. Hiralal Amritlal Parekh & Co. (2020) 117 taxmann.com 125 (Guj.)(HC)

Editorial: Revenue was granted two weeks time to refile SLP and, in case of revenue's failure to do so, SLP would be treated as dismissed for non-prosecution CIT v. Hiralal Amritlal Parekh & Co. (2020] 272 Taxman 96 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c), S. 264, Court (Ker.)(HC), Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Delay in flling the writ petition against revision order-No explanation was furnished-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 154, 271(1)(c), Art. 226]

Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 264

Court (Ker.)(HC)

Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Delay in flling the writ petition against revision order-No explanation was furnished-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 154, 271(1)(c), Art. 226]

Dismissing the petition the Court held that in the instant case, for the sake of repetition just to circumvent the procedure of appeal, which prima facie is time barred; writ petition in the year 2020 has been filed. This Court cannot assume a role of an appellate court and examine the veracity and legality of an order of assessment on merits.Accorrdingly the petition was dismissed. (AY. 2009-10)

H. M. Sahajhan v. PCIT (2020) 192 DTR 278 (Ker.)(HC)

Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 263, Court (Ker.)(HC), Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Estimate of income-Possible view-Revision is held to be not justified-Dropping of concealment penalty by the Assessing Officer-Revision order directing to levy of 300%-Tribunal affirming 200% levy of penalty-Order of tribunal is affirmed. [S.133A, 271(1)(c)]

Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 263

Court (Ker.)(HC)

Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Estimate of income-Possible view-Revision is held to be not justified-Dropping of concealment penalty by the Assessing Officer-Revision order directing to levy of 300%-Tribunal affirming 200% levy of penalty-Order of tribunal is affirmed. [S.133A, 271(1)(c)]

The assessee is in the business of conducting a bar attached hotel. It filed a return of income for the assessment year 2006-07. In the survey conducted under S. 133A at the business premises of the assessee. Incriminating documents and evidence were noticed, The daily statement and sales vouchers were found to be destroyed by burning after reporting the sale amount of liquor to the managing partner. The assessee offered an additional amount of Rs.23,00,000 for assessment consequent to the survey proceedings, but the AO found this insufficient and added a sum of Rs.

14,00,000 to make good the shortfall. The assessee agreed to that. The penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. The CIT passed two orders in respect of the quantum and penalty proceedings. The Commissioner also held that this was a fit case for imposing a maximum penalty of 300 per cent. The Tribunal upheld the assessment and justified the penalty, but reduced the penalty from 300 per cent. of the tax on the admitted income to Rs. 200 per cent. On appeal the Court held that the calculation of the gross profit was made by the Assessing Officer, and the assessee agreed to the additions made. The changes suggested by the Commissioner invoking the revisional jurisdiction under S. 263 were not sustainable. As regards the concealment penalty the Court held that it was only consequent to the survey that the assessee had filed a return of income and shown an additional income of Rs. 23 lakhs. Even that was not found to be sufficient, and the Assessing Officer had made a further addition of Rs. 14 lakhs. There was a conscious attempt on the part of the assessee to destroy accounts. Accordingly the order of Appellate Tribunal is affirmed. (AY.2006-07)

Malanadu Tourist Home v. CIT (2020)423 ITR 262 (Ker.)(HC)

Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 254(2), Court (Delhi) (Trib.), Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-High court admitting department appeal on same issue-Review of order is impermissible. [S. 260A, 271AA, 271(1)(c)]

Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 254(2)

Court (Delhi) (Trib.)

Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-High court admitting department appeal on same issue-Review of order is impermissible. [S. 260A, 271AA, 271(1)(c)]

Dismissing the application, the Tribunal held that, the High Court had admitted the appeal filed by the Department on the same issue contested in the application. Therefore, the application did not survive. Besides this, the Department was seeking review of the order which was beyond the scope of section 254. There was no mistake apparent from the record.(AY.2010-11)

ACIT v. Saviour Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2020)77 ITR 305 (Delhi) (Trib.)

Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Service matter:- Very Important Judgement from Hon'ble High Court of Madras on MACP

Very Important Judgement from Hon'ble High Court of Madras on MACP
MACP Very Important Judgement HC Madras
Posted: 27 Mar 2017 03:59 AM PDT
VERY IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT FROM HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

IMPLEMENTATION OF MACP RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 01-09-2008 AND DENYING PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY UNDER ACP FOR THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED REQUIRED SERVICE DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN 01-09-2009 TO 19-05-2009 HELD NOT LEGAL    
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.02.2017 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PARTHIBAN
Writ Petition Nos. 33946, 34602 and 27798 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2014 (3 Nos.)
M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2015 (3 Nos.) and
W.M.P.Nos.32682 and 32683 of 2016
W.P.No.33946 of 2014
1    The Union of India
Rep. by the Engineer-in-Chief Military Engineering Services Integrated HQ of MOD (Army)
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg New Delhi-110011.
2    The Chief Engineer Southern Command Manekji Mehta Road Pune-411 001.
3    The Chief Engineer MES Island Grounds Chennai Zone Chennai-600 009.
The Chief Engineer (R&D) (Opp) Jubliee Bus Station, Secunderabad-500 651.
The Chief Engineer (Factories) MES S.P. Road (Opp) Parade Grounds Hyderabad-500 003.
The Cheif Engineer (Navy)
MES Station Road Vizag-530 004.
.. Petitioners
The Chief Engineer (Air Force) MES No.2 D.C.Area MES Road Yeswanthapur Post Bangalore-560 022.
Versus
S.    Ranjit Samuel V.Sathya G.Maira Joseph A.Senguttvan D.Ravichandran
T.    G.V.Mahesh Gowri Venkat V.Sitaramachandran Santhi Thirunavukkarasu
10    P.R.Anantha Kumar
11    Buvana Ravi
12    Usha
13    A.Porchelvi
14    Sumathi Vethanayaranan
15    Sumathi Manoharan
16    E.B.Chandrasekaran
17    T.Senguttuvan
18    N.Rajenthiren
19    A.V.Prabhakar
20    C.T.Sudhakaran
21    K.Sampath Kumar
22    N.Krishnan
23    R.Ganesh
24    AX Jolly
25    R.Manivannan
26    Umaa Saivignesh
27    Chithra Rajagopal
28    The Registrar
.. Respondents
Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Buildings Chennai-600104.
Writ Petition No.33946 of 2014 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 28th respondent's Tribunal passed in O.A.No.1170 of 2012 dated 26.02.2014 and quash the same.
W.P.No.34602 of 2014
1    The Union of India
Rep. by the Engineer-in-Chief Military Engineering Services Integrated HQ of MOD (Army)
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg New Delhi-110011.
2    The Chief Engineer MES, Southern Command Manekji Mehta Road Pune-411 001.
3    The Chief Engineer MES Island Grounds Chennai Zone
Chennai-600 009.
4    The Cheif Engineer (Navy)
Station Road
Vizag-530 004.    ... Petitioners
Versus
1
R.Uma Shankar
2    V.Pandian
3    Kalaivani Manoharan
4    The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Buildings
Chennai-600104.    ... Respondents
Writ Petition No.34602 of 2014 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 4th respondent's Tribunal passed in O.A.No.437 of 2013 dated 26.02.2014 and quash the same.
W.P.No.27798 of 2014
1    The Union of India
Rep. by Directorate General of Personnel (CSCC) Military Engineer Services Engineer-in Chief's Branch Integrated HQ of MoD (Army)
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi.
2    The Military Engineer Services Chief Engineer,
Southern Command,
Pune.
... Petitioners
3    The Military Engineer Services Chief Engineer Military Engineering Service Chennai Zone, Chennai-9.
Versus
1    Girija Ganesan
2    N.Sundaraganesna
3    S.Padmasree
4    Vijaya Rajaram
5    R.Gopal
6    Jayanthi Kannan
7    N.Madumathi
8    K.Amutha
9    Abdul Karim
10    Saralla Shankar
11    A.S.Pushpa
12    Rita P.Balaswamy
13    Devaki Balakrishnan
14    Rema Benedict
15    V.Ramani
16    Pushpa Saravanan
17    T.Loganathan
18    D.John Basco
19    N.Vijayan
20    Vasanthi Parthibhan
21    S.Srinivasan
22    Jeeva Nagarajan
N.K.Vijayakumar T.M.Viswanathan V.Subramanian Shanthi Subramanian P.J.Suseela
S.Lakshmi Subhadra Ramesh Sasikala Sidharan Soundari Swaminathan V.Janani Bai V.Yogambal Shanthi Ramakrishnan S.Yamnabai
R.    Malarkodi V.Ravi
Wensilda Henry Ranjana Prabakaran A.Thiagarajan
S.    Ramaprabhu
R.    Krishnamurthy G.Renuka Devi Rajini Ravi
S.    M.Kottesswaran
46    G.Govindaraj
47    Sumathy
48    DR.Dekswaran
49    Selvi Mahalingam
50    Sasikala Sarkunan
51    S.Santhiya
52    C.M.Krishnaveni
53    K.Vimala
54    G.Seshammal
55    M.Thangapandian
56    A.Kusalakumari
57    CL Nirmala
58    The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Buildings
Chennai-600104.    ... Respondents
Writ Petition No.27798 of 2014 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 58th respondent's Tribunal passed in O.A.No.818 of 2011 dated 06.11.2013 and quash the same.
For Petitioners in : Mr.V.Balasubramanian
SPC
all W.Ps.
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by V.PARTHIBAN,J.)
The Writ Petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.Nos.1170 of 2012 and 437 of 2013 dated 26.02.2014 and also the order passed in O.A.No.818 of 2011 dated 06.11.2013 disposing of the Original Applications filed by the employees, who were shown as private respondents herein.
2.    For the sake of clarity, the parties are described as applicants and official respondents, as arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3.    All the applicants have a common grievance in the matter that they were not granted financial upgradation under the original Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1999 (herein after referred to as ACP Scheme), in the appropriate Grade Pay. The
case of the applicants was that they were all working as Junior
Engineers / Lower Division Clerks at the relevant point of time, without earning any promotion to the next higher grade. In terms of the ACP Scheme, many of them (in O.A.Nos.1170 of 2012 and 437 of 2013) had been granted the first financial upgradation, on introduction in August, 1999, in the pay scale of Rs.6500 - 10500 (pre-revised). In terms of the ACP Scheme, many of them (in O.A.No.818 of 2011) had been granted the first financial upgradation, on introduction in August, 1999, in the pay scale of Rs.4000 - 6000 (pre-revised). Between January and April 2009, all the applicants had completed 24 years of service and hence, the applicants (in O.A.Nos.1170 of 2012 and 437 of 2013) are entitled to second financial upgradation under the erstwhile ACP scheme in the pay scale of Rs.10,000 - 325 - 15,200 in the corresponding pay band of Rs.15,600 - 39,100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- and the applicants ((in O.A.No.818 of 2011) are entitled to second financial upgradation under the erstwhile ACP scheme in the pay scale of Rs.6000 - 8000, which has been merged with the scale of Rs.5500 -9000, in the corresponding pay band of Rs.9,300 - 34,800 with
Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. When their claim for second financial upgradation was pending, the Government of India issued Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (herein after referred to as MACP Scheme), vide Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, which envisaged grant of 3 financial upgradation to the Government employees, on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. The scheme was brought into effect from 01.09.2008 superseding the earlier ACP scheme. The principal difference between both ACP and MACP scheme was that in ACP scheme upgradation is granted in the next higher pay scale as per hierarchy of line of promotion, whereas MACP is concerned, it would only be in the next higher Grade Pay, as prescribed. Although the MACP scheme was introduced vide Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, it was retrospectively implemented with effect from 01.09.2008.
4.    The applicants having completed 24 years of service, between January and April 2009, they were hoping to be bestowed with the benefit of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, which was more advantageous to them, since the fixation is done in the next hierarchy of promotion and not in the next higher Grade Pay, as contemplated under the MACP scheme. In the circumstances, the applicants have submitted representations that they have to be given financial upgradation under the ACP scheme and which representations having been rejected, they approached the Tribunal praying for the relief as narrated above.
5.    According to the applicants, on the day when they completed 24 years of service, MACP scheme was not introduced, and as the same was introduced only by Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, their claim would fall within the four corners of the benefits available under the erstwhile ACP scheme, and an accrued right which was otherwise available to the applicants under the erstwhile ACP scheme cannot be curtailed or altered or taken away by retrospective implementation of the MACP scheme, with effect from 01.09.2008. According to the applicants, that the MACP
Scheme itself provides for retention of the then existing scheme for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation, if it was more advantageous to the employees concerned.
6.    Per contra, the claim of the applicants was sought to be resisted that on introduction of the MACP Scheme, the earlier Scheme had been replaced and question of grant of any benefit under the superseded Scheme cannot arise at all. According to the official respondents that it was completely within the domain of the policy makers to prescribe cut of date for implementation of various Schemes and such prescription of cut of date cannot be faulted with in the present circumstances.
7.    The learned Tribunal, after taking note of the submissions of the parties, has disposed of the Original Applications on the basis of its earlier order passed in O.A.No.818 of 2011, wherein a similar issue was the subject matter of the application. The said application is the subject matter of W.P.No.27798 of 2014, which is also covered under the present orders. The learned
Tribunal in paragraph-11 of the impugned order has passed the final directions, as extracted below:-
"11   
The respondents are directed to place the case of the applicants in both the OAs before the Screening Committee for consideration for grant of 2nd financial upgradation under ACP Scheme on completion of 24 years of service, provided they had completed this period as claimed by them between January and April,
2009 ie., prior to the issue of DOPT's OM dated 19.05.2009 by which MACP Scheme came to be introduced and if based on such consideration by the Committee, it is ordered to grant the above benefits, the benefits of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme, if extended would have to be withdrawn. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs."
8.    The learned Tribunal, while passing the directions, has also taken note of the fact that a similar application was decided by Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the employees holding that MACP Scheme cannot be applied retrospectively and it would applied only from the date of the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009. As against the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the present Writ Petitions are filed.
9.    The counsels appearing for the parties have reiterated the submissions. We have perused the pleadings and the materials on record.
10.    Although it is a matter of record that MACP Scheme was introduced vide Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, but the same was put into effect from 01.09.2008. In the instant case, admittedly, before introduction of the MACP Scheme under the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, the applicants have completed 24
years of service and their right to get second financial upgradation
under the erstwhile ACP Scheme got crystalised and such right cannot sought to be negated by bringing in a new Scheme with retrospective effect. The purpose and spirit of the Career Progression Scheme is only for the benefit of employees, who face stagnation in their career. That purpose and spirit cannot be defeated, if the benefit under the new Scheme is causing detrimental to the interest of the employees. The intention between the Scheme would not be as such. In any event, as a principle of purposive interpretation, it has to be seen that what is more advantageous to the employees is what should be preferred, since the Scheme being a beneficial one, cannot be allowed to result in loss to the employees on its implementation. Therefore, in all fairness and fitness of things, till the introduction of MACP Scheme vide Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, the benefit which accrued to the employees under the erstwhile ACP Scheme ought to have been made available.
11.    Moreover, it has to be seen that the Tribunal itself has allowed similar application and no contra material has been produced before us to take a different view in the matter. The well intended benefit under ACP or MACP Scheme cannot be allowed to suffer loss of proper fixation in the higher pay scale as such consequence would not further the purpose and spirit of the Scheme.
12.    In these circumstances, We do not find anything wrong in the final direction passed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned orders. Therefore, the Writ Petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(K.K.S.J.,)    (V.P.N.J.,)
14.02.2017
Index : Yes/No
Note : Issue order copy by 16.03.2017
mra
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
and
V. PARTHIBAN, J.
mra
To
The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench,
Chennai - 600 104.
Writ Petition Nos. 33946, 34602 and 27798 of 2014
and connected M.Ps.
14.02.2017
 

Source: Confederation
(The copy attached. )