TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1997-98 and 1998-99. 2. On 05/02/2007, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in holding that the notice under Section 21 of the E.T. Act, issued by the Commissioner of IT, in defective being not signed by him and the said defect is incurable? (B) Whether the ITAT ought to have held that the said notice dated 01/10/2002, was duly served on the assessee and was heard before passing the said order and as such no prejudice is caused to the assessee? (C) That in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ITAT ought to have held that the signing of the notice dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t "E.T. Act") contending that it was exempt from filing returns under Section 5(1) of the E.T.Act. Notices, however, were issued by the Assessing Authority, requiring the assessee to file expenditure tax returns. In response to that, respondent company / the assessee had filed Nil liability returns for all these assessment years. b. It is stated that the respondent company obtained a letter of exemption from the DG (IT) (Exemption), Calcutta vide order dated 31/07/2001, wherein, DG(IT) (Exemption) exempted the respondent company under Section 80 IA (4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, from expenditure tax w.e.f. 06/12/1990. Based on the said exemption letter, the respondent company claimed that its hotel / resort was exempted from the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....six tax appeals and the impugned order is a consolidated order pertaining to all Six appeals. As such, consolidated appeal is filed against the impugned order for all these Six appeals. Ms. Linhares states that the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax would not become invalid only for the reason that the notices under Section 21 of the E.T. Act were issued by an Officer other than the Commissioner of the Income Tax. It is submitted that on 26/03/2004 the revision orders have been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax himself and therefore, the orders having been passed by the competent statutory authority cannot be said to be illegal only because notices under Section 21 of the E.T. Act were issued by an Officer other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e aforesaid submissions in its proper perspective, it may be advantageous to reproduce Section 21 of the E.T. Act which reads as under: "Revision of orders by the Commissioner- (1) The Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of a proceeding under this Act which has been taken by the Income Tax Officer subordinate to him and may make such enquiry of cause such enquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit. (2) ---- (3) ---- (4) ---- (6)---- (7)---- ." 9. It is an undisputed position that the notice under Section 21 of the E.T. Act dated 01/10/2002 was iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the competent authority vested with that power. Therefore, the notice under Section 21 of the E.T. Act has necessarily to be issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax and not by the Assistant Commissioner. As a consequence, the notice being without jurisdiction, all the proceedings subsequent thereto are without authority of law. 12. In Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court was considering the legality of resolution empowering the Director General to authorize any other Officer to exercise his powers. The Court found that in the absence of enabling provision, such delegation would not be permissible and that the legislature can permit any statutory authority to delegate its power to any other authority after such a policy....