Administrative allocation of reassessment work upheld where consultation was directory and transfer provisions did not exclude general power.

Reassessment proceedings were governed by the law preserved for the relevant assessment year, and the Commissioner's direction to have the assessee's reassessment handled by a particular Income-tax Officer was upheld as a valid exercise of administrative power. The Court held that the provision empowering the Commissioner, in consultation with the Minister-in-charge, to direct how Income-tax Officers would perform their functions and allocate work supported the order. Consultation with the Central Board of Revenue was treated as directory, so its absence did not invalidate the direction. The special provision for transfer of pending cases did not exclude the general power to allocate work where the case was not pending.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner's order directing that the assessee's reassessment be done by a particular Income-tax Officer was valid, and whether the absence of consultation with the Central Board of Revenue rendered the order ineffective.

Analysis: The reassessment proceedings were held to be governed by the law kept alive for the relevant assessment year. The Court held that the Commissioner's power could be supported by the provision that authorised him, in consultation with the Minister-in-charge, to direct how Income-tax Officers would perform their functions and to allocate work among them. The requirement of consultation was treated as directory rather than mandatory, so non-consultation did not invalidate the order. The Court further held that the special provision for transfer of pending cases did not exclude the general power to distribute or allocate work in relation to a case that was not pending. On that basis, the Commissioner's order was upheld as a valid exercise of power.

Conclusion: The challenge to the jurisdiction and validity of the Commissioner's order failed, and the reassessment direction was sustained.

---