Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1990 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1990 (7) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the Income-tax Officer to request enhancement of disallowance u/s 37(3A).
2. Scope of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s power u/s 251(1)(a).
3. Competency of the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order.

Summary:

Issue 1: Competency of the Income-tax Officer to request enhancement of disallowance u/s 37(3A)

The assessee argued that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) was incompetent to request the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for enhancement of disallowance u/s 37(3A). The court held that while the Income-tax Act does not explicitly provide for the ITO to make such a request, it is within the ITO's rights to alert the appellate authority about any lapse or omission in the assessment. The court stated that the ITO had the locus standi to bring this to the CIT(A)'s notice.

Issue 2: Scope of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s power u/s 251(1)(a)

The court examined the scope of the CIT(A)'s powers, referencing CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate and other cases, and concluded that the CIT(A) has plenary powers in disposing of an appeal, including the power to enhance the assessment. This power is not restricted to suo motu actions but can also be exercised upon a request from the ITO. The court emphasized that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty to ensure a true and proper assessment, which includes considering any valid requests for enhancement from the ITO.

Issue 3: Competency of the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order

The court held that the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which did not address the ITO's request for enhancement, was competent. The CIT(A)'s failure to consider the ITO's request was deemed a jurisdictional error. The court noted that the Revenue (ITO) is entitled to file an appeal u/s 253(2) if the CIT(A) fails to discharge his statutory duty. The court found that the ITO had indeed made a request for enhancement, which was evident from the Tribunal's order and the case files.

Conclusion:

The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, holding that the appeal against the CIT(A)'s order not acceding to the ITO's request for enhancing the assessment is competent. The judgment was delivered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates