9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Our attention was invited to page 3 of the assessment order and para 4.1 of the impugned order. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for assessee invited our attention to para 4.2.1 of the impugned order and supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 3. We have considered the rival submissions of ld. representatives of both sides and perused the material available on record. Brief facts are that the assessee started a new industrial undertaking in a remote backward area and claimed deduction u/s 80IB of the Act at 100%. The assessee also earned income from house property and other income. As is evident from assessment order itself, the assessee showed income at Rs. 5,31,183/- on 31.10.2005, along with tax audit report and subsequently, filed revised return on 30.8.2005 showing total income at Rs. 26,754/-. In response to the notice, the assessee appeared before the ld. Assessing Officer from time to time and produced books of account, vouchers etc. which were examined by the ld. Assessing Officer. The other details, required by the Assessing Officer, were also filed during assessment proceedings with further details in compliance to queries raised by the department. In the revised re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised to make assessment as the TRO cannot assume the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon the decision in Bindal Apparels Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 8 SOT 498/104 TTJ 950 (Delhi). It was specifically pointed out that TRO is not included in the definition of Assessing Officer, meaning thereby, any notification cannot be notified against the law as I.T. Act is a self contained court. The Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon the decisions in CIT v. Chenniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41 (SC), CIT v. Sumendra Kumar Neogi [1981] 131 ITR 592/6 Taxman 147 (Cal.), CIT v. Hardware Exchange [1991] 190 ITR 61/[1992] 60 Taxman 343 (Gau.), Inaroo Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 312/69 Taxman 135 (Bom.). It was also contended that rule cannot prevail over the schedule of the Act for which reliance was placed upon the CWT v. R. Susheela [1989] 176 ITR 232/[1990] 49 Taxman 281 (Kar). On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR contended that the JCIT is empowered to authorise any person to work as Assessing Officer and the TRO was assigned to work accordingly by the JCIT-Khandwa by order dated 27.2.2006 (order No.2/2005-06) to which the Ld. Counsel for assessee contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the directions or orders referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board or other income-tax authority authorised by it may have regard to any one or more of the following criteria, namely :- (a) territorial area; (b) persons or classes of persons; (c) incomes or classes of income; and (d) cases or classes of cases. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,- (a) authorise any Director General or Director to perform such functions of any other income-tax authority as may be assigned to him by the Board; (b) empower the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that the powers and functions conferred on, or as the case may be, assigned to, the Assessing Officer by or under this Act in respect of any specified area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases, shall be exercised or performed by an Additional Commissioner or an Additional Director or a Joint Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Assessing Officer. Admittedly, the ITOs and the TROs are of the same rank and when a particular officer is assigned the work of ward, he or she is called Assessing Officer and when posted in recovery section, the nomenclature changes to TROs. In both cases, they are gazetted officers of the department. Even the Addl. Commissioner can perform all or of any powers and functions of any Assessing Officer to make an assessment of income even though he is not mentioned in the definition of "Assessing Officer" in sec. 2 (7A). Our view is fortified by the decision in the case of CIT v. Neeru Gambhir [2008] 166 Taxman 272 (Delhi). 6. A cumulative reading of sec. 2(7A) and sec. 120 of the Act clearly specifies the scheme of the Act. As per sub-sec. (1) to sec. 120, the I.T. Authorities are authorised to exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on or as the case may be, assigned to such authorities by or under this head in accordance with such directions as the board may issue for exercise of powers and performance of function by all or any of those authorities. Explanation was inserted by Finance Act 2006 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .6.1994), therefore, the aforesaid order dated 31.3.2006 was passed prior to insertion made by the Finance Act 2007. Even otherwise, by sub-sec. (7A) to sec. 2 itself, the relevant jurisdiction can be assumed by virtue of directions/orders issued under sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) of sec. 120 or any provision of this Act. In the present appeal, since the assessment order was framed by the TRO pursuant to these directions, therefore, we find no merit in the claim of the assessee. So far as the other cases (supra), relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for assessee, are concerned, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for assessee is that when the Act itself has used the word 'prescribed", therefore, concurring powers on the executive to make the rule is not justified. We are not in agreement with this submission because a clear-cut express provision has been made in the Act itself defining the word 'Assessing Officer' (Sec. 2 (7A) of the Act) and delegation of powers by the higher authorities by virtue of powers contained in sec. 120(5) of the Act. Even the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inaroo Ltd. (supra) itself speaks about harmonious construction so far as interpretatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
