COURT: | Bombay High Court |
CORAM: | Akil Kureshi J, Sarang V. Kotwal J |
SECTION(S): | 119, 250 |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | Enhancement, penalty |
COUNSEL: | Abhishek Padwalkar, Dharan Gandhi, Harsh Kothari, S.E. Dastur, Vipul Joshi |
DATE: | April 11, 2019 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | April 23, 2019 (Date of publication) |
AY: | - |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
S. 250: The CBDT is empowered to lay down broad guidelines for disposal of appeals by CsIT(A). However, it cannot offer 'incentives' to CsIT(A) for making enhancement and levying penalty. Such policy transgresses the exercise of quasi-judicial powers & is wholly impermissible and invalid u/s 119. The 'Incentives' have the propensity to influence the CsIT(A) and they will be tempted to pass an order in a particular manner so as to achieve a greater target of disposal |
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.
Recent Comments