2006 (8) TMI 92 - HC - Income Tax

Power of Commissioner - Assessee arises the question whether the Commissioner has power to examine the validity of a direction issued by the Dy. Commissioner - Held that Commissioner is competent to examine the legality and validity of direction issued by Dy. Commissioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax can set aside an assessment order under section 144A of the Income-tax Act without setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order?
2. Is the Income-tax Commissioner empowered to set aside an assessment order without issuing a notice to the assessee?
3. Is the revisional authority obliged to make separate inquiries for each year in the absence of setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order under section 144A?
4. Is the order being appealed against considered perverse and illegal?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order dismissing their appeal against the Commissioner of Income-tax's decision to set aside the Assessing Officer's order based on section 144A of the Income-tax Act. The court examined whether the Commissioner can set aside the assessment order without setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order. The appellant argued that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner under section 144A. However, the court held that the Commissioner can indeed examine the legality of the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner under section 144A, as per the provisions of the Act.

Issue 2:
The court further considered whether the Income-tax Commissioner is empowered to set aside the assessment order without issuing a notice to the assessee. The respondent argued that the Commissioner has the authority to review orders passed based on directions issued under section 144A. Citing relevant case law, the court concluded that the Commissioner has the power under section 263 of the Act to revise orders passed by the Income-tax Officer based on directions from superior authorities like the Deputy Commissioner under section 144A.

Issue 3:
Regarding the obligation of the revisional authority to make separate inquiries for each year in the absence of setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order under section 144A, the court emphasized that the Commissioner can examine the legality and validity of the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The court held that the Commissioner is competent to review the directions under section 144A, based on which the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 4:
Lastly, the court addressed whether the order being appealed against was considered perverse and illegal. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Commissioner has the authority to review the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner under section 144A. The court highlighted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer based on such directions is subject to revision by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.