TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2th March, 1996, which may be seen at pages 2555 and 2556 of the latest edition of Taxman on 'Direct Taxes Circulars-Income-tax', a copy of which is furnished by the learned counsel for the assessee, reads as follows- "749A. Scrutiny assessment guidelines for assessment year 1996-97. The Income-tax Department has decided not select returns for the assessment year 1996-97 for detailed scrutiny if the total income declared is at least 30% more than the total income declared for the assessment year 1995-96. The following further conditions should be fulfilled: (a) The total income for both the assessment years should exceed the basic exemption limit; (b) The total income for the assessment year 1995-96 should not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs; and (c) Tax is fully paid for the assessment year 1996-97 before the return is filed. In these cases the taxpayers will not be required to attend income-tax offices in connection with their assessments. However, some of these cases will be scrutinized if there is positive information of tax evasion or there is a large claim of refund. Press release; dated 12th March, 1996....." It is claimed that the assessee satisfies the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year 1996-97 the business income offered by the assessee was 51.6% higher than the business income offered by the assessee in the preceding year. In view of the fact the assessee qualifies for the 30% voluntary disclosure of income scheme that was offered by the department. As per this scheme, the selection of assessee's case for scrutiny is unjustified and the assessment done by the officer is improper. .............." An additional ground of appeal was taken before the CIT(A) questioning the validity of the assessment made in violation of the promise extended to the assessees by the said press-release. 4. The Assessing Officer did not deal with the above objection of the assessee, questioning his right to take the case for scrutiny, and the CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee in this behalf, with the following remarks- "8. An additional ground has been raised in the course of the appeal proceedings stating that, in spite of disclosure of income at 30% more that what was disclosed in the previous year, the case was taken up for scrutiny, which was against the decision taken by the Department. Therefore, the learned Authorised Representative urged that the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority, to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; or (b) so as to interfere with the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the exercise of his appellate functions. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power- (a) the Board may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of revenue, issue, from time to time (whether by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of sections 139, 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155, sub-section (1A) of section 201, sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C, 271 and 273 or otherwise) general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures to be followed by other income-tax authorities in the work relating to assessment or collection of revenue or the intimation of proceedings for the imposition of penalties and any such order may, if the Board is of opinion that it is necessary in the public interest so to do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by notice to the persons responsible for the execution of the Act, or by notice to the public. Such public advertisements amount to notice to the public as well as circulars to the officers. In this context, reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble. Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Savoy Enterprises Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 192, in which it is held that executive instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes are binding on the concerned authorities and also the decisions of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd [1993] 204 ITR 225, in which it was held that circulars can even supplement law. It is also pleaded that under the press-release in question, there are only two circumstances under which the benefit of the press-release can be withheld, and they are (1) if there is positive information of tax envision; and (2) if there is a large claim of refund. It is mentioned that none of the above two circumstances were 'obtaining in the case of the assessee, and so, the Assessing Officer was not justified in not extending the benefit of the press-release to the assessee, and he has subjected the case of the assessee to scrut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in the opinion of the Board, necessary in the public interest, shall be published and circulated in one or more of the following modes, namely:-- (i) publication of the order in the Official Gazette; (ii) dispatching copies of the order to Chambers of Commerce and other trade or professional associations which are, for the time being, borne on the mailing list of the Board; (iii) displaying copies of the order on the notice board of the office of every Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assessing Officer." It is claimed that as the assessee is claiming a benefit, i.e., exemption from scrutiny, it is for him to prove that the said order or press release has been published or circulated in the prescribed manner. As it is not proved that the said press release has been published or circulated in the prescribed manner in accordance with Rule 111B, the benefit of the press-release cannot be given to the assessee, notwithstanding the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bombay Cloth Syndicate relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee. 7. We are of the view that the assessee deserves to succeed. It is not....