Mr. Shahid Khan Sir vs. Ms. Tavleen Singh—In retrospect It is easy to be wiser post-dated. But it is never too late to draw lessons even from mishaps. Once ‘Tewari ji ‘ said—if two persons are throwing stones at each other, the guilt will not be determined by who inflicted more grievous injury but by who threw the first stone. I asked, what if it can’t be ascertained? He paused, smiled and said—pacify, warn and let off both. Goodness incites goodness depending, in degree, on the intrinsic goodness of the other person. But badness incites badness more often with its dimension increased or multiplied. People, as generally found in the world, are more prone to responding to badness than to goodness, of course if they can. At another time he said-- if you have let off a child/ subordinate on his faults several times earlier and decide to punish him on the last one, finding it too much, don’t determine the guilt and the punishment by aggregating all of them, confine yourself to the last one, don’t even mention the earlier ones. Otherwise, he will feel aggrieved and carry a sense of being wronged, your earlier inaction making you a party and entitling him presume he never did wrong earlier. And, moreover, one genuine case is better than the sum total of a hundred doubtful cases—be strong enough to fortify the single one before you. Yet another time he said—the moment you enter into a dialogue with someone having a different viewpoint, treating him equal, you make him opponent as well as the judge. Whereas in case of a third party judge, the motive becomes crucial, in this case, motive has never to be questioned, even if venal-- a case can never be won by questioning the motive of the judge. The moment it is questioned, the opponent becomes entitled to question your motive too, howsoever benign it may be. The dialogue is soon reduced to ‘tu tu mein mein’ and the issue gets sidelined. If you find the motive of the opponent too venal, don’t enter into a dialogue and explore some other remedy. He often cites the Dialogues of Plato where Socrates, Plato’s protagonist (some people doubt if he was a real person or just a myth woven around the character in Plato’s Dialogues) conducts himself strictly as per this norm and brings most difficult people (as well as the reader) around. Even if not achievable in practice, that remains the standard. Ghalib’s या रब न वो समझे हैं न समझेंगे मेरी बात is a good warning but, unfortunately, everybody realizes it for himself after the mishap has happened. हियां क बतिया हिंएं छोड़ि द्या अब आगे कर सुनौ हवाल—in the style of ‘Aalha’ narrative as sung in rural Oudh in this very season. As CC, Trichy, I had faced what then looked like an intractable teething problem of TDS matching, hindering the pace of processing of returns and subsequent rectifications (then it was not centralized with CPC). The Board had laid down step-by-step procedure to be followed but that involved a lot of harassment to the tax-payers (as if they were being forced to keep paper work going with on-line work added to it), as also considerable, painstaking exercise (viewed by the staff and the officers as imposed extra work) in the office of the AOs. With the help of some committed staff members and officers—I still remember the name of one Sr. TA, Mr. A. Eswaran, who subsequently got promoted as OS during my tenure itself besides a CIT, Mr. R K Kakkar-- we could overcome the problem in Trichy CC charge (whose achievement percentage in this area was maximum among the C Cs of the Chennai Cadre Control). I do remember, the password was given only to the AOs and Sr. TAs were not permitted to operate the system, but many dud old ITOs promoted earlier in one go totally blank on computer, a workable solution had evolved, the Board’ one hand , as usual, not knowing the problems of the other. It is Mr. Eswran who used to give me daily report( sometimes the chain of command doesn’t work) and it is he with his own chosen team of senior TAs who traveled to resolve the bottlenecks to each mofusil station in Trichy charge irrespective of the jurisdiction (they were not entitled to do the work any way). [ I generally found the cadre of our directly-recruited inspectors and Senior TAs to be the best.] We were, however lagging behind very far in the additional CC charge of Madurai (which came to me much later in the F Y, that too at the initiative of Mr Khan sir as Zonal Member, it traditionally remained with the CC-I, Chennai despite the distance and his/her additional administrative work, probably also because, earlier, no CC was expected to remain in Trichy or Madurai for long. Mr. Khan was perhaps the first Zonal Member who visited both Trichy and Madurai to oversee the work (leave aside the Members/ Chairmen from South who frequently visited for religious or personal purposes). After he had gone, I deputed to Madurai the same group of TAs from Trichy who had performed so well there, led by Mr. Eshwaran, and used to take weekly feedback from him directly. Against all odds, the work was completed well before it was to be barred by limitation. I don’t know what happened in other charges to save the limitation in that critical, transitional year. By the time I joined as Income-tax Ombudsman at Kochi, the work was centralized at CPC, Bengaluru. There I came across an exceptionally human problem, rather tragic one, at personal level. A tax-payer had entered into a venture-type construction business in collaboration with a Dubai firm with tax responsibility exclusively on him. Incurred huge losses, went broke, fell terminally ill. His wife had to sell his car for his treatment and used to take him to the hospital in auto-rikshaw. In the year the venture was wound up, there was profit. His counsel, while filing the return on-line , did not adjust the losses of the earlier years in arriving at the net income in the main part of the on-line return, though he furnished the details of these losses in the relevant annexure. As against a sizable amount of refund due on account of TDS , demand was raised in processing. Not getting his fee, the counsel refused to do anything, saying he had done everything correctly and the Department was at fault. But he was kind enough (?) to return the file, which, for his wife, was just a bundle of papers. She had, however, been told by her husband that a good amount of refund was due from the IT department, which could be of immense help in their critical situation, but he could not tell her what she could do in the matter. Living in the same complex, his wife became known to my wife. Gathering that I was doing ‘something’ in the IT Deptt, she contacted my wife and on my wife’s passionate recommendation, I had to hear her personally and peruse all the papers in my house. I suggested that a rectification application be filed before the AO. She was blank. I had to dictate the draft of the application to her, which she took in long hand and with great difficulty, many words common to us seeming out of bound to a housewife though fairly educated, as also impossible to spell in writing. Dictation somehow over, she assured that she would get that typed, and signed by her husband. The AO, a very good and considerate officer, raised his hands telling that the records were still with the CPC and the FIRST rectification could be done only by them. I talked to the CIT, CPC. His prompt reply was the figure of total income could not be reduced in any rectification to be done by the CPC and, moreover, they didn’t have the record of past losses to verify the figures in the annexure. I reverted to the AO. He told that the figures of past losses were verifiable from the records in his office. Now the problem was the system didn’t permit the AO to carry out first rectification even if the records were transferred to him. Again I talked to the CIT, CPC and, with great difficulty, prevailed on him to get the records transferred to the AO and also to enable the system to permit the AO carry out this first rectification. On my pursuing the matter at every stage, his wife got the refund. She was full of tears, had never expected it would be possible. The AO helped a lot (unfortunately, I forget his name, it was a little difficult Malyali name ). After about a month, it is the AO who rang me to tell that the tax payer was no more. He had come to know from a local Malyalam daily; they have the practice of publishing short obituary free. I never met the tax-payer. When my wife met his wife to condole, she was emotionally wreck. After a month or so, she vacated the flat and went to her parents in Mumbai and, for us, lost to the world. Somehow, my wife still remembers her and becomes sad, but we don’t have contact. In my own case, a demand of Rs 5000 and odd was raised by the system (conspicuously by rectification after processing and accepting the return, without even informing me) by wrongly calculating 234B and 2344C without taking into account 140A payment. Despite on-line rectification done on my request by the AO at Kochi, OLTAS (or something I don’t know much now, my CA informed) continued showing outstanding demand for three years and I had to talk to the AO at Kochi, CIT, CPC and the AO at Belgaum to get it corrected this year. Last year, the concerned clerk in the bank put one letter of my PAN incorrect in the TDS return etc in respect of my pension payment and it took several months and my frequent reminders for doing of the needful by the CA of the bank. He often said system had not yet permitted such correction, and then , it was not responding. In another bank which had deducted TDS on my interest income last year. the CA, some personal acquaintance of the manager, was so incompetent that 26AS didn’t reflect this or any TDS of that branch till mid July. Fortunately, on my insistence, the CA was changed and I could file the return just before the due date. This year, I got all TDS certificates as well as the credits in 26AS in the first week of May itself. The improvement involves proper care at several points beyond the control of the Deptt. It is still going on. So, there is a vast gap between what is done at systemic level and how much of it gets translated at the field level. The level of devotion, sincerity and commitment in each individual implementing the system counts and makes or mars our image. For an outsider, the whole of the Department plus other bodies involved in the processes are a single entity. The Notice Server, the T A, or the Inspector he happens to meet is ‘Income-tax Department’ for him and he carries its image for years to come on the basis of one omission or commission of that single official. This is a human limitation, more or less we all are subject to. A lot has been done in the Department as excellently articulated by Mr. Khan sir, which is much more and much better than in many other departments. But we have nothing to boast about as we cannot vouch for each and every individual engaged in the process of implementation before it reaches the cutting edge. That is what I meant when I commented on 5 August—larger issues are involved. What was the basic purpose of the first letter of Mr. Khan sir? To convince her of the truth of the matter by assuming that she didn’t have correct, first hand information and went by general notion. Or, to prove her wrong and conceited and malicious as, according to sir, she always had been in her writings and attitude. If it was the latter, it is an excellent counter-affidavit before a court (may be general public here) where she and the Department are two parties. But if the reply had the first purpose, it should have been more guarded, friendly, focused on the issue at hand and, without questioning her motive, informing her the correct position, presuming she was not properly informed but meant well for the country and all its constituents and was thus striving for a common cause, where misunderstanding among the co-travelers could mar the collective momentum as well as each individual’s potential as a contributor. This is what I have commented on 7 and 8 August. Then also, substantially, all those facts could be incorporated that Mr. Khan sir has painstakingly gathered and structured so well. Only some sentences here and there had to be omitted or made more placatory. Then the response must have been different and more receptive. May be, the other two letters would not at all have been required. In the second letter, besides reinforcing the factual position point by point, the tone and tenor remained the same as in the first letter. It was bound to aggravate the situation further, turning her an arrogant, autocratic adversary, the whole exercise going in vain so far as any improvement in her understanding was concerned. It has of course served very well for others, including those who are really ( ?) concerned with the matter. If I don’t express my views on the third letter of Mr. Khan sir, it would be intellectual dishonesty on my part, which is put to test but rarely in life, sometimes taking a huge cost. All I have in my heart is admiration for him and for what he stands for. If I really mean well to him, which I do, I must express myself plainly and without any kind of hesitation or reservation. This third letter seems to be an effort to mach her aggressiveness—abuse by abuse, insult by insult-- and declare his victory on the basis of her persistent evasiveness, putting before her a permanent challenge. I am afraid, it brings him down to her level-- a great loss to us. For instance, the personal information given in the last but one sentence is not at all relevant even to others. My humble suggestion of an alternative—“As regards…..in reading and writing, I do realize I can’t match your concision as reflected in ‘Once more you missed the point.’ But the trouble is, with my limited understanding, I can’t make out head or tale of the point that you allege I missed. May be, the routine work of mundane nature and the well-known mediocrity of bureaucracy render one incapable of comprehending such nuances as distinguished journalists like you have to dwell on as a matter of course. Will you be kind enough to be a bit more indulgent for my benefit ? As regards reading carefully, I assure you madam to be more careful while reading your elaboration on the point I missed, and that, I trust, you would not deprive me of. “ And in ‘Thanks again for showing your CONCEIT’ I wish a spelling mistake, the correctly spelled word could be CONCEN instead of CONCEIT. It could have looked artful or crafty but still better than self-aggrandizing personal information elicited without being called for, not at all germane to the issue at hand, and also not in good taste. And it could have hammered the relevant point with much greater force. But then, the tenor of the whole letter would have required to be changed and harmonized with these last two sentences. I still think, he wrote in anger and it does not reflect his true self. May be, one day, he would be free from that anger. Naturally, I have not minced words. I conclude by appreciating the transparency, courage and the true democratic spirit of making the entire correspondence public, that occasioned such affront on my part to my life-time hero. This also I dare make public in the same spirit.
Posted on: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:47:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015