Section 256 Power of certain income-tax authorities.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

This document concerns Clause 256 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) as compared with Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (enacted text). It deals with the power to make enquiries under the Act and the extent of those powers (equating competent authorities to Assessing Officers for enquiry powers). The change from the Bill to the Act primarily substitutes a generic "competent authority" with an explicit list of specified offices. Affected parties include taxpayers, departmental officers, and tax practitioners. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: The provision is located as Clause 256 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and as Section 256 in the Income-tax Act, 2025 (enacted). Context: Both texts aim to empower higher authorities within the income-tax administration to make enquiries under the Act and to furnish those authorities with the same powers as an Assessing Officer for purposes of making enquiries. Coverage: making of enquiries under the Act by specified/competent authorities. Definitions or explanatory language: The Bill includes a short legislative note-"Clause 256 of the Bill seeks to provide for the powers of Assessing Officer under the proposed legislation in relation to making enquiries to competent authority, i.e., higher authorities." No further definitions are provided.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

• Text (Bill, Old Version): "The competent authority shall be competent to make any enquiry under this Act, and for this purpose, shall have all the powers that an Assessing Officer has under this Act in relation to the making of enquiries."
• Text (Act, Section 256): Lists specific offices (Principal Director General or Director General; Principal Director or Director; Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner; Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; and the Joint Commissioner) and states these officers "shall be competent to make any enquiry under this Act, and for this purpose, shall have all the powers that an Assessing Officer has under this Act in relation to the making of enquiries."
• Coverage: Empowerment to "make any enquiry under this Act"-a broad phrase encompassing statutory enquiries relevant to income-tax administration. The scope extends to the investigatory powers exercisable by an Assessing Officer in relation to making enquiries; those powers are adopted for the competent authorities named (or the generic competent authority in the Bill).

Interpretation

Legislative intent indicated by the text: To enable higher or supervisory officers of the tax department to initiate and conduct enquiries with the procedural and substantive powers that an Assessing Officer possesses. The Bill's explanatory sentence indicates an intent to vest Assessing Officer-type powers in "higher authorities." The enacted section's specificity suggests an intent to identify clearly which tiers of officers are intended to wield such powers.

Exceptions/Provisos

Not stated in the document. The provision contains no express exceptions, provisos, territorial limitations, or procedure-specific constraints within the clause itself.

Illustrations

• Example 1: A Principal Commissioner reviews a case and initiates an enquiry into a taxpayer's transactions using summons powers that Assessing Officers possess. (Consistent with the text: the Principal Commissioner is among the named officers authorised to make enquiries.)
• Example 2: A Joint Commissioner summons documents from a third party as part of an enquiry, exercising the same statutory powers that an Assessing Officer would have. (Consistent with the text: Joint Commissioner is explicitly included.)

Interplay

The provision refers to "all the powers that an Assessing Officer has under this Act in relation to the making of enquiries," thereby importing the functional scope of an Assessing Officer from elsewhere in the statute. Specific cross-references to other Sections, Rules, Notifications or Circulars are Not stated in the document. How this provision operates alongside delegation provisions, territorial jurisdiction rules, or safeguards (for instance, provisions on issuance of notices, recording of reasons, or rights of representation) is not specified within the clause itself and must be read in conjunction with other statutory and procedural provisions of the Act and subordinate instruments-those cross-references are Not stated in the document.

Differences Between the Provisions and Practical Impact

• Particularity vs. Generality: The Bill uses the term "the competent authority" without identifying persons; the enacted Section gives a specific, non-exhaustive list of officer ranks.
  • Practical impact: The enacted text reduces ambiguity about who may exercise enquiry powers and clarifies that several senior grades (including Joint Commissioner) are explicitly empowered. This clarity aids departmental assignment of tasks and gives taxpayers a known class of officers who may make enquiries; where the Bill is silent about identity, administrative instruments or rules would have been needed to identify the "competent authority."
• Scope of empowered officers: The enacted Section both expands clarity and possibly narrows wider administrative discretion (since only the listed ranks are mentioned).
  • Practical impact: If the Bill's intent was to permit any "competent authority" designated u/rs or orders (potentially broader), the enacted Section limits competence to specific established ranks, which may prevent ad hoc delegation to officers outside those ranks unless other delegation provisions exist elsewhere in the Act (Not stated in the document).
• Explicit inclusion of Joint Commissioner: The Act explicitly includes the Joint Commissioner; the Bill's phrase could have included them but did not list ranks.
  • Practical impact: Explicit inclusion authorises mid-senior officers to undertake enquiries formally, potentially increasing departmental capacity to investigate while ensuring those exercises are within clearly enumerated grades.
• Legislative signalling: The Bill's explanatory note suggests the policy aim - to confer Assessing Officer-like powers on "higher authorities." The enacted provision's rank list shows the legislature's choice to vest those powers in specified higher authorities (Principal Director General/Director General/Principal Director/Director; Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner) and also in the Joint Commissioner.
  • Practical impact: This signals an intention to centralise enquiry powers within established supervisory grades while still empowering a defined level of field leadership.

Practical Implications

• Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers should expect enquiries to be initiated by clearly identified senior officers listed in Section 256. Practitioners should confirm the officer's rank and authority when responding to enquiries; if an officer not enumerated purports to exercise Section 256 powers, the textual basis for that exercise is not apparent from Section 256 alone (further authorisation would need to be checked elsewhere; Not stated in the document whether such authorisation exists).
• Record-keeping/evidence: Since the provision confers Assessing Officer-like powers for enquiries, records typically used in AO enquiries (summons, inspection notes, communications, responses) will be relevant. Specific procedural requirements for exercising powers, timelines, or forms are Not stated in the document.
• Administrative effect: The explicit rank list allows departments to designate internal workflows and allocate enquiry responsibilities to the named grades without relying on separate delegations for those ranks. Any required internal orders to operationalise this are Not stated in the document.
• Litigation exposure: The clear textual enumeration may lead to challenges where officers outside the listed grades purport to exercise enquiry powers; the outcome would depend on other provisions or delegations not included here (Not stated in the document).

Key Takeaways

• The Bill used a generic "competent authority"; the enacted section names specific senior offices-this reduces ambiguity about who may enquire.
• Both texts grant enquiry powers equivalent to those of an Assessing Officer; no additional limitations or procedures are specified in the clause itself.
• The explicit listing of offices in the Act clarifies administrative responsibility and likely narrows grounds for challenges based on the identity of the enquiring officer.
• No provisos, territorial limits, or procedural safeguards are contained in the clause; interaction with other statutory provisions is necessary to determine limits and process.
• Practical consequence for taxpayers: expect enquiries from senior officers and retain appropriate records; details on process and timelines are not provided in the clause.

---

Full Text:

Section 256 Power of certain income-tax authorities.

Enquiry powers: specified senior income-tax officers authorised to exercise Assessing Officer powers for statutory enquiries. Section 256 vests enquiry authority in specifically listed senior officers - Principal Director General/Director General, Principal Director/Director, Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and Joint Commissioner - and grants them Assessing Officer-like powers to make enquiries under the Act, including summons and document requisition, while the clause contains no procedural provisos or territorial limits and therefore relies on other statutory or subordinate provisions for operational safeguards and delegation mechanics.