Rule 86 appeal limits statutory remedies against tax recovery orders and excludes further revision under land revenue law

Rule 86 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides only one statutory appeal against an order of the Tax Recovery Officer. Where the officer is a Collector, Additional Collector, or an authorised gazetted officer, the appeal lies to the revenue authority that would ordinarily hear appeals from a Collector under the land revenue law; in other cases, it lies to the authority that would ordinarily hear an appeal from that officer. The rule does not incorporate further appellate or revisional remedies under the State land revenue law, and the right of appeal cannot be expanded by importing section 41 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. For a Tahsildar's order, the Sub-Divisional Officer is the final appellate authority under the rule.

---

---

Issues: Whether a further appeal or revision lay from the appellate order passed under rule 86 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and whether the Commissioner was right in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as not maintainable.

Analysis: Rule 86 provides only one appeal against an order of the Tax Recovery Officer. Where the officer is a Collector, Additional Collector, or a gazetted officer authorised under section 2(44) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appeal lies to the revenue authority ordinarily hearing appeals from a Collector under the land revenue law. Where the officer is not within those categories, the appeal lies to the authority which would ordinarily hear an appeal from such officer under the land revenue law. The scheme of the rule does not incorporate the further appellate or revisional remedies available under the State land revenue law. The right of appeal is purely statutory and cannot be enlarged by importing section 41 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code into rule 86. In the present case, the Tax Recovery Officer was a Tahsildar, so the Sub-Divisional Officer was the final appellate authority under the rule, and no further appeal or revision was maintainable.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was right in holding the appeal and revision not maintainable, and the challenge to those orders failed.

---