- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, engaged in the construction business, constructed a complex during the assessment years 1993-94 to 1996-97. Upon completion in 1996-97, the respondent offered the balance profit for taxation after accounting for profits declared in 1993-94 and 1994-95. The Assessing Officer rejected the respondent's books of account and referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Cell, which determined a higher value of the property than declared. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition to the respondent's income and completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The respondent appealed against this order, which was rejected by the appellate authority. The respondent then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax filed the present appeal against the Tribunal's order dated August 20, 2002.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee's case falls under the instructions issued by the Department in Instruction No. 1935 dated March 12, 1996?
- Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer ought not to have taken up the case for scrutiny?
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent contended before the Tribunal that the Department had issued a circular (Instruction No. 1935 dated March 12, 1996) stating that no detailed scrutiny would be conducted for the assessment year 1996-97 if the total income declared was at least 30% more than that declared in 1995-96.
- The respondent argued that since the conditions of the circular were fulfilled, the assessment itself was invalid.
Appellant's Arguments
- The Commissioner of Income-tax argued that the instructions issued by the Department were not binding on the Tribunal or any judicial authority and could not be enforced in execution proceedings.
- The appellant relied on a Supreme Court judgment (Amiya Bala Paul v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shillong) to support their position but conceded that it was not relevant for the present controversy.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Uco Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, W.B, [1999] 237 ITR 889 | Clarifies the status and binding nature of circulars issued under section 119 of the Income-tax Act; such circulars are binding on income-tax authorities unless adverse to the assessee. | The court relied on this precedent to hold that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes was binding on the income-tax authorities and the Tribunal was correct in applying it to disallow scrutiny of the respondent's case. |
| Amiya Bala Paul v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shillong, [2003] 262 ITR 407 | Referenced by appellant to challenge the binding nature of circulars. | The court found this precedent irrelevant to the present controversy and did not rely on it in its decision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the status of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119(1) of the Income-tax Act, referencing the authoritative Supreme Court decision in Uco Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Supreme Court held that such circulars are binding on income-tax authorities in the administration of the Act, provided they are not adverse to the assessee. The circular in question instructed that returns for the assessment year 1996-97 would not be selected for detailed scrutiny if the declared income was at least 30% more than the previous year and certain conditions were met. Since the respondent fulfilled these conditions and the circular was binding on the authorities, the Tribunal correctly held that the Assessing Officer should not have taken up the case for detailed scrutiny. The appellant's contention that the circular was not binding was rejected, and a referenced Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the appellant was deemed irrelevant.
Holding and Implications
The appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is that the Tribunal's order allowing the respondent's appeal and holding that the case was not liable for detailed scrutiny under the circular is upheld. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming the binding nature of circulars issued under section 119 of the Income-tax Act on income-tax authorities. The decision ensures that guidelines issued by the Board for proper administration of the Act are respected, preventing undue hardship to assessees fulfilling specified conditions.
Bilal Nazki, J.:— This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, against an order passed by the Tribunal on August 20, 2002. The questions framed by the appellant are:
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee's case falls under the instructions issued by the Department in Instruction No. 1935 dated March 12, 1996?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the Assessing Officer ought not to have taken up the case for scrutiny?”
2. The relevant facts are mentioned hereinbelow:
The respondent is engaged in the business of construction. She constructed a complex during the assessment years 1993-94 to 1996-97. On completion of the project in the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee, after taking into consideration the profit offered in the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95, offered the balance profit for taxation in the assessment year 1996-97. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account maintained by the assessee, referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Cell for ascertaining the cost of the construction. The Valuation Cell determined the value of the property at Rs. 2,02,15,924 as against the declared value of Rs. 1,43,74,515. The Assessing Officer after making adjustments to the valuation report, completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), by making an addition of Rs. 55,93,115 being the difference in the cost of construction declared by the assessee and as determined by the Valuation Cell. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred by the respondent. The appeal was rejected. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the appeal was preferred before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the Department.
3. A very short question is involved. Admittedly, the Department issued a circular by way of press release on March 12, 1996. These guidelines were regarding “scrutiny assessment guidelines for assessment year 1996-97”. By these guidelines, it was notified that the Income-tax Department had decided not to select returns for the assessment year 1996-97 for detailed scrutiny, if the total income declared is at least 30 per cent, more than the total income declared for the assessment year 1995-96.
4. The case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that the Department had decided not to have detailed scrutiny for the assessment year 1996-97 if the income declared was at least 30 per cent, more than the income declared in 1995-96, therefore, the assessment itself was bad. The Tribunal accepted this contention. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that these instructions were not binding on the Tribunal or court or were not available for execution to any judicial authority.
5. There is no dispute about the circular having been issued, which reads as under:
“749A. Scrutiny assessment guidelines for assessment year 1996-97.
The Income-tax Department has decided not to select returns for the assessment year 1996-97 for detailed scrutiny if the total income declared is at least 30 per cent, more than the total income declared for the assessment year 1995-96. The following further conditions should be fulfilled:
(a) the total income for both the assessment years should exceed the basic exemption limit;
(b) the total income for the assessment year 1995-96 should not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs; and
(c) tax is fully paid for the assessment year 1996-97 before the return is filed.
In these cases the taxpayers will not be required to attend Income-tax Offices in connection with their assessments. However, some of these cases will be scrutinised if there is positive information of tax evasion or there is a large claim of refund.”
6. The conditions laid down in the circular are also fulfilled by the respondent and there is no dispute on that also. Now, the only question, which needs an answer is, as to what is the status of these circulars. The circular had admittedly been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119(1) of the Act. What is the scope of such circulars should not detain us because of the authoritative pronouncement of the hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Uco Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, W.B, [1999] 237 ITR 889. The Supreme Court noted (page 895):
“What is the status of these circulars? Section 119(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides that, ‘the Central Board of Direct Taxes may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. Provided that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued (a) so as to require any income-tax authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; or (b) so as to interfere with the discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the exercise of his appellate functions'. Under sub-section (2) of section 119, without prejudice to the generality of the Board's power set out in sub-section (1), a specific power is given to the Board for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of revenue to issue from time to time general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions, not being prejudicial to assessees, as to the guidelines, principles or procedures to be followed in the work relating to assessment. Such instructions may be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the sections specified there or otherwise. The Board thus has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under section 119 of the Income-tax Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage under the Act is given the right to forgo the advantage when required to wield it in a manner it considers just by relaxing the rigour of the law or in other permissible manners as laid down in section 119. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and in public interest. It is a beneficial power given to the Board for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assessee and the fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Hard cases which can be properly categorised as belonging to a class, can thus be given the benefit of relaxation of law by issuing circulars binding on the taxing authorities.”
7. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, which is clear from the paragraph quoted above, held in no uncertain terms that:
(a) the authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board;
(b) such instructions can be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the section specified therein or otherwise;
(c) the Board has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under section 119 of the Income-tax Act;
(d) the circulars can be adverse to the Income-tax Department, but still, are binding on the authorities of the Income-tax Department, but cannot be binding on the assessee, if they are adverse to the assessee;
(e) the authority, which wields the power for its own advantage under the Act, has a right to forgo the advantage when required to wield it in a manner it considers just by relaxing the rigour of the law by issuing instructions in terms of section 119 of the Act.
8. This judgment leaves no room to doubt that the Tribunal was right in holding that the income-tax authorities could have not selected the case for detailed scrutiny in view of the circular issued by the Board.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Amiya Bala Paul v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shillong, [2003] 262 ITR 407. This case is not relevant for the purpose of present controversy.
10. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Alert