2002 (5) TMI 48 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds tax notification, dismisses writ petition, orders petitioner to pay costs

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of Notification No. 267 of 2001 and affirming the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer.2. Validity of Notification No. 267 of 2001.3. Authority of the Commissioner of Income-tax.4. Petitioner's right to choose the Assessing Officer.Summary:1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer:The petitioner challenged the order by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I, dated March 4, 2002, asserting that only the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax can function as the Assessing Officer post Notification No. 267 of 2001, dated September 17, 2001. The petitioner argued that the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(4), lacks jurisdiction over the case.2. Validity of Notification No. 267 of 2001:The petitioner contended that the statutory notification dated September 17, 2001, issued u/s 120(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, mandates that only Joint Commissioners or Joint Directors of Income-tax can exercise the powers and functions of the Assessing Officers. The petitioner argued that this notification supersedes any internal guidelines or instructions, such as Instructions Nos. 5 and 6 of 2001, which are not binding on the public or the assessee.3. Authority of the Commissioner of Income-tax:The court examined the powers conferred by section 120 of the Act, which allows the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to delegate functions to various income-tax authorities. The court noted that the impugned notification was issued to empower Joint Commissioners to handle special cases without prejudice to the general jurisdiction of Assessing Officers u/s 120(1) and (2). The court held that the Commissioner of Income-tax has the authority to issue orders in writing for the exercise of powers by Joint Commissioners in specified cases, as per section 120(4)(b).4. Petitioner's right to choose the Assessing Officer:The court dismissed the petitioner's claim that the assessment should be carried out by a Joint Director. It emphasized that the assessee does not have a fundamental right to be assessed by a particular income-tax authority. The court stated that the notification dated September 17, 2001, aligns with legislative intent and does not divest the powers of Assessing Officers under section 120(1) and (2). The court concluded that the petition was filed to delay the assessment proceedings and dismissed it with costs of Rs. 3,000 to be paid to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within three weeks.Conclusion:The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of Notification No. 267 of 2001 and the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(4), to handle the case. The court upheld the authority of the Commissioner of Income-tax to delegate powers to Joint Commissioners in special cases and rejected the petitioner's right to choose the Assessing Officer.