All these contingencies necessarily point to circumstances where the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in favour of the revenue. For example this policy refers to the enhancement made by the Commissioner or a case where the Commissioner has levied penalty under section 271(1) of the Act. This necessarily refers to enlargement of the assessee’s liability before the Commissioner as compared to what may have been determined by the Assessing Officer. In our opinion, such policy is wholly impermissible and invalid. Any directives by the CBDT which gives additional incentive for an order that the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass having regard to its implication, necessarily transgresses in the Commissioner’s exercise of discretionary quasi judicial powers.

With respect to the Petitioners’ second part of the challenge, we are of the opinion that the CBDT should reconsider the same. From the action plan, it is not clear as to the utility of the norms set which the Commissioner has to achieve. If the purpose of setting of norms is to evaluate the performance of the Commissioner, there would be all the more reason why the above quoted portion of the action plan be reconsidered by the CBDT