TDS jurisdiction and statutory hierarchy: notice quashed where subordinate authority exercised overlapping powers under an overbroad notification

The Calcutta High Court examined whether an Assistant Commissioner (TDS) could validly issue a notice for enquiry and documents concerning an annual TDS return under section 206, and whether the notification authorising that power respected the statutory hierarchy. The court's analysis treated the Assessing Officer definition as broad enough to include an Assistant Commissioner when properly vested by notification, but found the impugned notification conferred overly wide powers and enabled parallel action despite assessment proceedings pending before a superior authority. On that basis, the notice was quashed for lack of proper authority and excessive delegation, and the jurisdictional arrangement was directed to be aligned with the Income-tax Act hierarchy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner (TDS) had jurisdiction to issue a notice calling for enquiry and documents in relation to the annual TDS return filed under section 206 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the notification conferring such power was valid in light of the statutory hierarchy.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of sections 2(7A), 116, 120, 124, 200 and 206 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rules 36A and 37 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, shows that the term "Assessing Officer" is wide enough to include an Assistant Commissioner when duly vested with jurisdiction by notification. The notice in question related only to verification of the TDS return and short deduction under Chapter XVII-B. However, the Court found that the impugned notification conferred very wide powers on the Assistant Commissioner (TDS), extending beyond mere enquiry, while the assessee's regular assessment was simultaneously pending before a superior authority for the same assessment year. The Court held that such parallel exercise of power by a subordinate officer, without regard to the statutory hierarchy under section 116, amounted to excessive delegation and could not be treated as proper concurrent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner (TDS) lacked valid authority to sustain the impugned notice in the manner issued, and the notice was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned TDS notice was set aside, with a direction to the Chief Commissioner to modify the notification so that the jurisdictional arrangement conformed to the statutory hierarchy.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification conferring TDS-related powers on a subordinate income-tax authority must operate consistently with the statutory hierarchy, and where it enables overlapping or excessive exercise of jurisdiction in the same assessee's matter, the resulting notice can be quashed for want of proper authority.

---