1997 (11) TMI 53 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of declining relief due to pending assessment proceedings.
2. Appellate court's jurisdiction to interpret Instruction No. 133.
3. Potential prejudice to appellant due to the Board's communication.
4. Jurisdiction of the Board to issue clarifications on Instruction No. 133.
5. Requirement of a hearing before the Board's clarification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Declining Relief Due to Pending Assessment Proceedings:
The court upheld the learned single judge's decision to decline relief to the appellant due to the pending assessment proceedings. The court emphasized that the learned single judge correctly observed that the Board's communication dated July 28, 1992, was merely an opinion and not a final verdict. The assessment authority was directed to decide the matter on its merits, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard.

2. Appellate Court's Jurisdiction to Interpret Instruction No. 133:
The court noted that the learned single judge refused to interpret Instruction No. 133, considering it inappropriate to do so while the regular assessment was pending. The appellate court agreed, emphasizing that the interpretation of such instructions should be left to the competent authorities during the assessment process.

3. Potential Prejudice to Appellant Due to the Board's Communication:
The appellant argued that the Board's communication would prejudice the assessment authority. However, the court found this apprehension to be "imaginary and incorrect." The learned single judge had explicitly directed the assessment authority not to be influenced by the Board's communication while making the final assessment. The court reiterated that the assessment authority must consider all materials impartially.

4. Jurisdiction of the Board to Issue Clarifications on Instruction No. 133:
The court examined Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, which empowers the Board to issue orders, instructions, and directions for the proper administration of the Act. However, it concluded that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to issue clarifications on instructions at the request of an individual taxpayer. The court highlighted that the Board's powers are primarily administrative and supervisory, not quasi-judicial.

5. Requirement of a Hearing Before the Board's Clarification:
The appellant contended that the Board violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for a hearing before issuing the clarification. The court rejected this argument, stating that since the Board lacked jurisdiction to issue such clarifications, the question of a hearing did not arise. The learned single judge had already provided the appellant with an opportunity to present all relevant materials during the assessment proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the learned single judge's judgment. It directed the assessment authority to dispose of the assessment proceedings in accordance with the law, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard and considering all relevant materials without being influenced by the Board's previous communication. The court emphasized the importance of following due process and maintaining the integrity of the assessment proceedings.