2004 (3) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Order made by the Commissioner of Income-taxin exercise of his revisional jurisdiction - Commissioner found that the assessee claimed the entire gross dividend income amounting to Rs. 4,34,166 as an item which is exempt. Expenses were debited separately for claiming by way of loss. Even the chartered accountant of the company in the audit report had debited the entire loss and claimed net income of Rs. 1,68,579. - In the instant case, the assessee, instead of preferring an appeal, preferred a revision. - In our opinion, the impugned order is not without jurisdiction nor is it palpably erroneous - In these circumstances, this court would not like to exercise its writ jurisdiction and hence the petition is dismissed.

Issues:
1. Revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax.
2. Distinction between appeal and revision.
3. Nature and scope of writ of certiorari.
4. Conditions for granting a writ of certiorari.

Revisional Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax:
The writ petition challenged the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner had filed a return declaring a loss, with the source of income being dividend. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, assessing a net loss after disallowance of expenses. Subsequently, proceedings under section 148 were initiated, and an order under section 154 was passed. The petitioner requested the Commissioner to direct the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment order and grant relief. The Commissioner found discrepancies in the claim of exempt income and expenses, leading to the petitioner approaching the court.

Distinction Between Appeal and Revision:
The court emphasized the distinction between appeal and revision, stating that revisional powers are to be exercised sparingly when an appellate forum is available. The assessee, instead of appealing, had opted for revision, limiting the Commissioner's jurisdiction. The court highlighted the importance of exercising powers as indicated in law and the need to differentiate between the two avenues of redressal. It was noted that the assessee did not avail of the remedy of appeal, raising questions about the approach taken in seeking redressal.

Nature and Scope of Writ of Certiorari:
The court delved into the nature and scope of a writ of certiorari, citing previous judgments to explain its supervisory role over judicial or quasi-judicial acts. The writ is used to adjudicate on the validity of such acts and does not function as an appellate tribunal. Certiorari is granted when a court acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, correcting patent errors but not mere wrong decisions. The court referenced specific cases to elucidate the principles underlying the issuance of a writ of certiorari, emphasizing the need for a clear jurisdictional basis for its application.

Conditions for Granting a Writ of Certiorari:
The court, based on legal precedents, determined that the impugned order was not without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous. The petitioner's contention of an error of law was considered within the factual matrix of the case. Even if the court were to agree with the petitioner, it could not substitute its views for those of the Commissioner of Income-tax. Therefore, the court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to legal principles and the limitations of the court's supervisory role in matters of certiorari.

← Previous Next →