The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 2449 (Bom-HC) : (2019) 416 ITR 0021 : (2019) 308 CTR 0464 : (2019) 263 TAXMAN 0551

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 119

Any directives by CBDT, which gives additional incentive for an order that CIT(A) may pass having regard to its implication, necessarily transgresses in CIT(A)'s exercise of discretionary quasi-judicial powers. Interference or controlling of discretion of a statutory authority in exercise of powers from an outside agency or source, may even be superior authority, is wholly impermissible.

CBDT Powers - 'Central Action Plan' of CBDT - Validity of - A part of Central Action Plan giving higher weightage for disposal of appeals by quality appellate orders

Writ petition was filed challenging a portion of 'Central Action Plan' prepared by CBDT for the financial year 2018-19. The grievances of the petitioner were related to two areas of the said plan. Petitioner's first grievance was in respect of time line set and the directions to CIT(A) for deciding appeals within such time. According to petitioner, such targets and time limits would put unnatural pressure on the CIT(A) to decide the cases in a hasty manner, which has every possibility of denying a fair hearing to assessee. Second area of petitioners' grievance was with respect to allocation of units for disposal of what has been referred to as 'quality orders'. Petitioner pointed out that these quality orders are those, which result in favour of the department and according to it granting more weightage to such orders, would have possibility of influencing the outcome of appeals before the Appellate authorities. Held: While granting wide powers to CBDT under section 119(1), the proviso thereto provides that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued, so as to require any income tax authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner. Thus, portion of Central Action Plan prepared by CBDT which gives higher weightage for disposal of appeals by quality orders 'i.e.' where order passed by CIT(A) is in favour of revenue was to be set aside. Editores Note:Bombay High Court strikes down CBDT incentive policy to Commissioner (Appeals) Bombay High Court struck down the following portion of Central Action Plan (CAP) for 2018-19. 'Incentive for quality orders: (i) With a view to encourage quality work by CITs (A), additional credit of 2 units shall be allowed for each quality appellate order passed. The CIT(A) may claim such credit by reporting such orders in their monthly DO letter to the CCIT concerned. Quality cases would include cases where- (a) enhancement has been made, (b) order has been strengthened, in the opinion of the CCIT, and (c) penalty under section 271(1) has been levied by the CIT(A). (ii) The concerned CCIT shall examine any such appellate orders referred to him by the CIT(A), decide whether any of the cases reported deserve the additional credit and convey the same through a DO letter to the CIT(A), which can be relied upon while claiming the credit at the year end.'

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com