Guidelines regarding acquisition proceedings under Ch.XXA. - Income Tax - 1793/CBDT

INSTRUCTION NO. 1793/CBDT Dated: August 11, 1988 The Board has been viewing with concern the heavy pendency in respect of proceedings for acquisition initiated under Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which has been replaced by Chapter XXC with effect from 1.10.1986. It has been noticed that the pace of disposal under Chapter XXA is very slow and at the current rate of disposal, it may take many years to wipe out the pendency. Unless a large number of small cases are reduced, important and bigger cases may not get detailed attention. Therefore, as a step towards reducing the workload and enabling the Competent Authorities to concentrate on more important cases which may produce deterrent effect for tax evaders, it has been decided as a measure of administrative simplification to cut down the workload of pending cases where the apparent consideration is Rs.10 lakhs or less. In respect of pending cases where the apparent consideration is above Rs.10 lakhs, the further guidelines indicated in this Circular will now apply. 2. In partial modification of the Board's Circular No.455 dated the 16th May, 1986, issued from file No.316/38/85-WT where acquisition proceedings have been initiated by issue of a notice under section 269D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the proceedings shall be dropped forthwith in the following cases;- (A)In cases where acquisition proceedings have been initiated by issue of notice under Section 269D, if the Section 264 mean that the jurisdiction of CIT u/s 264 in respect of an order would be barred whether an appeal against that order has been preferred before the Tribunal by the assessee or by the Department. The Board's Instruction No.195 dated 30.7.1070 stands superseded. This legal position may be brought to the notice of all in your charge. A *copy of the extract from opinion of Ministry of Law is enclosed. *Extract of opinion of Ministry of Law. 8. On a careful analysis of Section 264(4)(c) and the judgement pronounced by Calcutta and Karnataka High Courts, we feel that the earlier opinion given by us should be revised and the circular issued may accordingly be amended. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner for revision is an extra remedy alternatively available to an assessee in case he has not been able to point out available to an assessee in case he has committed at the time of original assessment. This remedy is available also for orders which are not appealable. This remedy can be availed of only alternatively when he did not file an appeal or the order has not been appealed. It makes no difference if an appeal is filed either by the Dept. The logic which may be given for this is that the assessee should have an opportunity of adjudication on the points he was not able at the time of the order made by the ITO or Assistant Appellate Commissioner. If those orders are made the subject of appeal by the Dpt. , then also he has an opportunity to put forward his grievance before the appellate court and may seek relief. The intention of the legislature seems to have been complied with and there seems to be no taking away of the right of revision in that case. The judgements in the aforesaid cases seems to be proper on the basis of the doctrine of merger. The Hon'ble High Court has rightly said that if an order of lower authority has been appealed, the judgement of the appellate authority shall merge with the orders earlier given. Now, there remains nothing for such the revision filed before the Commissioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid, we agree with the ruling given by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the views expressed by Dept. They may accordingly amend the circular earlier issued.