Full Judgment Text
2009:BHC-AS:13092-DB
1
abs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7708 OF 2008
Maharashtra Academy of Engineering & Educational
Research, Pune .. Petitioner
V/s
Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Pune & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. S.G. Dastur, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.B. Bhujle for the Petitioner.
Mr. B.M. Chaterjee with Mr. Y. Patki and Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the
respondents.
CORAM : FERDINO I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : 28TH JULY 2009
JUDGMENT : (Per Ferdino I. Rebello, J.)
1. Rule. By consent of the parties, heard forthwith.
2. The petitioner is a Public Trust whose sole activity is of running
educational institutions. Upto A.Y. 198889, the income of the petitioner was
exempted under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”). Section 10(22) was omitted by Finance (No.2) Act,
st
1998 with effect from 1 April 1999, i.e. from A.Y. 19992000 and the
exemption for the income of an educational institution like the petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
2
Trust was provided in the amended section 10(23C)(vi). The said section
10(23C)(vi) of the Act, as applicable for A.Y. 19992000, reads as under:
“ Incomes not included in total income.
10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any
person, any income falling within any of the following clauses
shall not be included.
(23C) any income received by any person on behalf of
(i) .........
(vi) any university or other educational institution existing
solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit,
other than those mentioned in subclause (iiiab) or subclause
(iiiad) and which may be approved by the prescribed authority.”
th
3. The petitioner Trust made an application for approval on 30 March
1999. The Prescribed Authority for granting approval was the Central Board
th
of Direct Taxes (CBDT). By its order dated 9 March 2004, the CBDT
approved the petitioner Trust for the purposes of exemption under section
10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the A.Ys. 19992000 to 200102. The petitioner
th
thereafter made applications for renewal dated 24 December 2002 for A.Ys.
nd
200203 to 200405 and on 22 February 2005 for A.Ys. 200506 to
200708.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
3
4. Subsequent to the survey under section 133A of the Act carried out on
th
the office premises of the petitioner Trust on 20 July 2005, a show cause
th
notice dated 30 April 2007 by CIT (Central), Pune came to be issued on the
petitioner under section 12AA(3) of the Act to show cause why the
registration granted to the petitioner Trust under section 12A(a) of the Act
th
on 25 March 1999 ought not to be cancelled. The petitioner showed cause
st
against the same. By an order dated 31 October 2007 passed by the CIT
(Central), Pune the registration was cancelled.
th st
5. The petitioner by its letter dated 9 August 2007 had requested the 1
respondent to grant renewal of the exemption for the period A.Y. 200203
st
onwards. Instead of granting renewal, the 1 respondent issued a show
th
cause notice dated 26 November 2007 proposing to rescind the approval
th st
granted by CBDT on 9 March 2004. The 1 respondent by his order dated
th th
8 February 2008 rescinded the approval granted by CBDT on 9 March
2004 under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the period A.Ys. 19992000 to
200102 and also refused to renew the approval for the subsequent period.
6. The show cause notice issued was also based on the report of the CIT
th
(Central) dated 5 November 2007 opposing the renewal of approval of the
petitioner Trust under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. There are various
other facts which need not be set out including those which have been
incorporated pursuant to the amendment allowed by this Court by an order
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
4
th
dated 26 March 2009.
7. Though various contentions have been raised on behalf of the
st
petitioner, it is pointed out that the order passed by the 1 respondent is
without jurisdiction and consequently on this point alone the petition has to
be allowed and the order is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded
for consideration by the Prescribed Authority, which, according to the
petitioner, is CBDT and not respondent no.1, i.e. Director General of Income
Tax (Investigation), Pune.
8. Replies have been filed on behalf of the respondents. The passing of
nd
the impugned order was justified. By our order dated 22 June 2009 after
hearing the parties, the Court had directed the respondents to clarify as to
who is the Prescribed Authority. Pursuant to that, an affidavit has been filed
by Mr. Dharamchand Nemichand Parikh, Deputy Director of Income Tax
(Investigation)(H. Qrs.), Pune. Reliance is placed on Rule 2CA of the Inome
th
Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on a notification dated 30 May 2007.
Based on the Rules and the notification, it is set out that the respondent no.1
would be the Prescribed Authority.
9. Considering the narrow controversy, we will first consider Rule 2CA of
the Income Tax Rules, which reads as under:
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
5
“ Guidelines for approval under subclauses (vi) and (via) of
clause (23C) of section 10
2CA (1) The prescribed authority under subclauses (vi) and
(via) of clause (23C) of section 10 shall be the Chief
Commissioner or Director General to whom the application shall
be made as provided in subrule (2).
(1A) The prescribed authority under subclauses (vi) and (via)
of clause (23C) of section 10 shall be the Central Board of Direct
Taxes constituted under the Central Board of Revenue Act, 1963
rd
for applications received prior to 3 day of April 2001.
rd
Provided that in case of applications received prior to 3 day of
April 2001 where no order has been passed granting approval or
st
rejecting the application as on 31 day of May 2007, the
prescribed authority under subclauses (vi) and (via) of clause
(23C) of section 10 shall be the Chief Commissioner or Director
General.
(2) An application for approval shall be made in Form No.56D
by any university or other educational institution or any hospital
or other medical institution referred to in subclauses (vi) and
(via) of clause (23C) of section 10.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
6
(3) The approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes or Chief
Commissioner or Director General, as the case may be, granted
st
before the 1 day of December 2006 shall at any one time have
effect for a period not exceeding three assessment years.”
10. We may also reproduce below the part of notification:
“ Prescribed authority . In pursuance of the provisions
contained in subclauses (vi) and (via) of clause (23C) of
section 10 read with subrule (3) of rule 2CA, the Central Board
of Direct Taxes hereby authorises the following chief
Commissioners or Directors Generals to act as prescribed
authority for the purposes of subclauses (vi) and (via) of
clause (23C) of section 10 in relation to any university or other
educational institution or any hospital or other medical
st
institution with effect from the 1 day of June 2007, namely:
(i) for cases falling in the jurisdiction of Director of Income
tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, the prescribed authority shall be
Chief Commissioner of Incometax, AhmedabadIV, Ahmedabad;
(ii) for cases falling in the jurisdiction of Director of Income
tax (Exemption), Bangalore, the prescribed authority shall be
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
7
Chief Commissioner of Incometax, BangaloreI, Bangalore;
(iii) ..........”
11. From a reading of Rule 2CA of the Rules, it would be clear that in
rd
respect of application received prior to 3 April 2001, the prescribed
authority under subclauses (vi) and (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 of
the Act shall be CBDT constituted under the Central Board of Revenue Act.
In section 10(23C), the expression used is “prescribed authority”. Prescribed
authority is not defined under the Act. Under the Rules framed the
prescribed authority has been defined for the purpose of subclause (vi) and
(via) as the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and in respect of
rd
applications received prior to 3 April 2001 as CBDT. There is also a proviso
to subrule 2CA which sets out that in respect of application received prior to
rd
3 April 2001 where no order has been passed granting approval or rejecting
st
the application as on 31 May 2007, the prescribed authority under sub
clauses (vi) and (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 shall be the Chief
Commissioner or Director General.
12. In that context, let us consider section 10(23C)(vi) and/or (via) of the
Act as also the 13th proviso which reads as under:
“Provided also that where the fund or institution referred to in
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
8
subclause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in subclause
(v) is notified by the Central Government [or is approved by the
prescribed authority, as the case may be,] or any university or
other educational institution referred to in subclause (vi) or
any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub
clause (via), is approved by the prescribed authority and
subsequently that Government or the prescribed authority is
satisfied that
(i) such fund or institution or trust or any university or
other educational institution or any hospital or other medical
institution has not
(A) applied its income in accordance with the provisions
contained in clause (a) of the third proviso; or
(B) invested or deposited its funds in accordance with the
provisions contained in clause (b) of the third proviso; or
(ii) the activities of such fund or institution or trust or any
university or other educational institution or any hospital or
other medical institution
(A) are not genuine; or
(B) are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of
the conditions subject to which it was notified or approved,
it may, at any time after giving a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the proposed action to the concerned
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
9
fund or institution or trust or any university or other
educational institution or any hospital or other medical
institution, rescind the notification or, by order, withdraw the
approval, as the case may be, and forward a copy of the order
rescinding the notification or withdrawing the approval to such
fund or institution or trust or any university or other
educational institution or any hospital or other medical
institution and to the Assessing Officer:]”
13. Thus, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, considering that the
th
approval was granted on 9 March 2004 and the application was made on
th
24 December 2002, it would be CBDT which would be the prescribed
authority to grant the application and also to consider, review or recall the
order insofar as A.Ys. 19992000 to 200001 are concerned.
14. The only argument advanced on behalf of the respondents has been
th
that if the notification of 30 May 2007 is considered, it would be clear that
the CBDT has authorised the Chief Commissioner or the Director General. It
is the submission on behalf of the respondents that there is delegation of
powers by CBDT in favour of the Director General. Let us examine the said
contention.
15. The Rules made are pursuant to the power conferred on the CBDT
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
10
under section 295 of the Act. The Rules so made, insofar as section 10(23C)
(via) is concerned, have defined the “prescribed authority” in respect of
rd
applications made prior to 3 April 2001 and which were not disposed of by
st th
31 May 2007 as the CBDT.. The notification issued on 30 May 2007 would
be referable to Rule 2CA(1) which has notified the Chief Commissioner or
the Director General, generally, i.e. without any territorial jurisdiction. There
are several Chief Commissioners or Director Generals for various
commissionerates or areas throughout India. The notification only spells out
which of the Director Generals or Chief Commissioners would have
jurisdiction in that area. So read, insofar as Rule 1A is concerned, it is clear
that it will be that Chief Commissioner or Director General for that area
alone would have jurisdiction over that area. The rule cannot be read into
1A which has specifically defined the prescribed authority as CBDT. There is
no delegation of power of the CBDT by the notification to the Director
General or any Commissioner. The notification therefore is clearly
inapplicable insofar as Rule 2CA(1A) is concerned.
16. Having held that the prescribed authority is CBDT – respondent no.1
for the years 19902000 to 200001, the prescribed authority to pass the
order reviewing grant of permission would be CBDT. In our opinion, once a
power is conferred by the Act and the Rules, it is only that authority, who has
been conferred power under the Act and the Rules who alone can assume
jurisdiction. Merely because in the reply to the show cause notice, an
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
11
objection was not raised would not confer power on an authority which
otherwise had no jurisdiction. Clearly therefore the order recalling or
th
reviewing the earlier order dated 8 February 2008 is beyond jurisdiction
and is liable to be set aside.
17. In the light of the above and for the aforesaid reasons, this petition is
disposed of in the following terms:
th
(a) The petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 8
February 2008, more particularly paragraphs 10 and 11 thereof, are set
aside. The power to rescind or recall for the yeas 19992000 to 200001 is to
be exercised by CBDT alone.
(b) The DGIT is directed to consider the pending applications of the
petitioner for the assessment years 200203 to 200405 and for the
assessment years 200506 to 200708.
(c) It is open to the competent authority, if so entitled in law, to take such
steps as he is entitled to.
(d) Considering our order, all parties including the Commissioner of
Appeals to act accordingly and hear the pending appeals and dispose of the
same at the earliest.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
12
(e) In the event there be an adverse order, the same shall not be acted
upon for a period of 8 weeks from the date of its communication.
(f) It is made clear that in respect of applications for A.Y. 200203
onwards, it will be the respondent no.1 – Director General of Income Tax in
terms of the Rules, who will be the competent authority.
18. We further make it clear that we have not gone into the issues on the
merits and have left all questions open for consideration by the prescribed
authority.
19. The learned counsel for the respondents prays for stay of this order.
The request is rejected. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the
appeals, the respondents shall not make any recovery.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
1
abs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7708 OF 2008
Maharashtra Academy of Engineering & Educational
Research, Pune .. Petitioner
V/s
Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Pune & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. S.G. Dastur, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.B. Bhujle for the Petitioner.
Mr. B.M. Chaterjee with Mr. Y. Patki and Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the
respondents.
CORAM : FERDINO I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : 28TH JULY 2009
JUDGMENT : (Per Ferdino I. Rebello, J.)
1. Rule. By consent of the parties, heard forthwith.
2. The petitioner is a Public Trust whose sole activity is of running
educational institutions. Upto A.Y. 198889, the income of the petitioner was
exempted under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”). Section 10(22) was omitted by Finance (No.2) Act,
st
1998 with effect from 1 April 1999, i.e. from A.Y. 19992000 and the
exemption for the income of an educational institution like the petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
2
Trust was provided in the amended section 10(23C)(vi). The said section
10(23C)(vi) of the Act, as applicable for A.Y. 19992000, reads as under:
“ Incomes not included in total income.
10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any
person, any income falling within any of the following clauses
shall not be included.
(23C) any income received by any person on behalf of
(i) .........
(vi) any university or other educational institution existing
solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit,
other than those mentioned in subclause (iiiab) or subclause
(iiiad) and which may be approved by the prescribed authority.”
th
3. The petitioner Trust made an application for approval on 30 March
1999. The Prescribed Authority for granting approval was the Central Board
th
of Direct Taxes (CBDT). By its order dated 9 March 2004, the CBDT
approved the petitioner Trust for the purposes of exemption under section
10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the A.Ys. 19992000 to 200102. The petitioner
th
thereafter made applications for renewal dated 24 December 2002 for A.Ys.
nd
200203 to 200405 and on 22 February 2005 for A.Ys. 200506 to
200708.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
3
4. Subsequent to the survey under section 133A of the Act carried out on
th
the office premises of the petitioner Trust on 20 July 2005, a show cause
th
notice dated 30 April 2007 by CIT (Central), Pune came to be issued on the
petitioner under section 12AA(3) of the Act to show cause why the
registration granted to the petitioner Trust under section 12A(a) of the Act
th
on 25 March 1999 ought not to be cancelled. The petitioner showed cause
st
against the same. By an order dated 31 October 2007 passed by the CIT
(Central), Pune the registration was cancelled.
th st
5. The petitioner by its letter dated 9 August 2007 had requested the 1
respondent to grant renewal of the exemption for the period A.Y. 200203
st
onwards. Instead of granting renewal, the 1 respondent issued a show
th
cause notice dated 26 November 2007 proposing to rescind the approval
th st
granted by CBDT on 9 March 2004. The 1 respondent by his order dated
th th
8 February 2008 rescinded the approval granted by CBDT on 9 March
2004 under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the period A.Ys. 19992000 to
200102 and also refused to renew the approval for the subsequent period.
6. The show cause notice issued was also based on the report of the CIT
th
(Central) dated 5 November 2007 opposing the renewal of approval of the
petitioner Trust under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. There are various
other facts which need not be set out including those which have been
incorporated pursuant to the amendment allowed by this Court by an order
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
4
th
dated 26 March 2009.
7. Though various contentions have been raised on behalf of the
st
petitioner, it is pointed out that the order passed by the 1 respondent is
without jurisdiction and consequently on this point alone the petition has to
be allowed and the order is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded
for consideration by the Prescribed Authority, which, according to the
petitioner, is CBDT and not respondent no.1, i.e. Director General of Income
Tax (Investigation), Pune.
8. Replies have been filed on behalf of the respondents. The passing of
nd
the impugned order was justified. By our order dated 22 June 2009 after
hearing the parties, the Court had directed the respondents to clarify as to
who is the Prescribed Authority. Pursuant to that, an affidavit has been filed
by Mr. Dharamchand Nemichand Parikh, Deputy Director of Income Tax
(Investigation)(H. Qrs.), Pune. Reliance is placed on Rule 2CA of the Inome
th
Tax Rules. Reliance is also placed on a notification dated 30 May 2007.
Based on the Rules and the notification, it is set out that the respondent no.1
would be the Prescribed Authority.
9. Considering the narrow controversy, we will first consider Rule 2CA of
the Income Tax Rules, which reads as under:
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
5
“ Guidelines for approval under subclauses (vi) and (via) of
clause (23C) of section 10
2CA (1) The prescribed authority under subclauses (vi) and
(via) of clause (23C) of section 10 shall be the Chief
Commissioner or Director General to whom the application shall
be made as provided in subrule (2).
(1A) The prescribed authority under subclauses (vi) and (via)
of clause (23C) of section 10 shall be the Central Board of Direct
Taxes constituted under the Central Board of Revenue Act, 1963
rd
for applications received prior to 3 day of April 2001.
rd
Provided that in case of applications received prior to 3 day of
April 2001 where no order has been passed granting approval or
st
rejecting the application as on 31 day of May 2007, the
prescribed authority under subclauses (vi) and (via) of clause
(23C) of section 10 shall be the Chief Commissioner or Director
General.
(2) An application for approval shall be made in Form No.56D
by any university or other educational institution or any hospital
or other medical institution referred to in subclauses (vi) and
(via) of clause (23C) of section 10.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
6
(3) The approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes or Chief
Commissioner or Director General, as the case may be, granted
st
before the 1 day of December 2006 shall at any one time have
effect for a period not exceeding three assessment years.”
10. We may also reproduce below the part of notification:
“ Prescribed authority . In pursuance of the provisions
contained in subclauses (vi) and (via) of clause (23C) of
section 10 read with subrule (3) of rule 2CA, the Central Board
of Direct Taxes hereby authorises the following chief
Commissioners or Directors Generals to act as prescribed
authority for the purposes of subclauses (vi) and (via) of
clause (23C) of section 10 in relation to any university or other
educational institution or any hospital or other medical
st
institution with effect from the 1 day of June 2007, namely:
(i) for cases falling in the jurisdiction of Director of Income
tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, the prescribed authority shall be
Chief Commissioner of Incometax, AhmedabadIV, Ahmedabad;
(ii) for cases falling in the jurisdiction of Director of Income
tax (Exemption), Bangalore, the prescribed authority shall be
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
7
Chief Commissioner of Incometax, BangaloreI, Bangalore;
(iii) ..........”
11. From a reading of Rule 2CA of the Rules, it would be clear that in
rd
respect of application received prior to 3 April 2001, the prescribed
authority under subclauses (vi) and (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 of
the Act shall be CBDT constituted under the Central Board of Revenue Act.
In section 10(23C), the expression used is “prescribed authority”. Prescribed
authority is not defined under the Act. Under the Rules framed the
prescribed authority has been defined for the purpose of subclause (vi) and
(via) as the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and in respect of
rd
applications received prior to 3 April 2001 as CBDT. There is also a proviso
to subrule 2CA which sets out that in respect of application received prior to
rd
3 April 2001 where no order has been passed granting approval or rejecting
st
the application as on 31 May 2007, the prescribed authority under sub
clauses (vi) and (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 shall be the Chief
Commissioner or Director General.
12. In that context, let us consider section 10(23C)(vi) and/or (via) of the
Act as also the 13th proviso which reads as under:
“Provided also that where the fund or institution referred to in
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
8
subclause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in subclause
(v) is notified by the Central Government [or is approved by the
prescribed authority, as the case may be,] or any university or
other educational institution referred to in subclause (vi) or
any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub
clause (via), is approved by the prescribed authority and
subsequently that Government or the prescribed authority is
satisfied that
(i) such fund or institution or trust or any university or
other educational institution or any hospital or other medical
institution has not
(A) applied its income in accordance with the provisions
contained in clause (a) of the third proviso; or
(B) invested or deposited its funds in accordance with the
provisions contained in clause (b) of the third proviso; or
(ii) the activities of such fund or institution or trust or any
university or other educational institution or any hospital or
other medical institution
(A) are not genuine; or
(B) are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of
the conditions subject to which it was notified or approved,
it may, at any time after giving a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the proposed action to the concerned
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
9
fund or institution or trust or any university or other
educational institution or any hospital or other medical
institution, rescind the notification or, by order, withdraw the
approval, as the case may be, and forward a copy of the order
rescinding the notification or withdrawing the approval to such
fund or institution or trust or any university or other
educational institution or any hospital or other medical
institution and to the Assessing Officer:]”
13. Thus, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, considering that the
th
approval was granted on 9 March 2004 and the application was made on
th
24 December 2002, it would be CBDT which would be the prescribed
authority to grant the application and also to consider, review or recall the
order insofar as A.Ys. 19992000 to 200001 are concerned.
14. The only argument advanced on behalf of the respondents has been
th
that if the notification of 30 May 2007 is considered, it would be clear that
the CBDT has authorised the Chief Commissioner or the Director General. It
is the submission on behalf of the respondents that there is delegation of
powers by CBDT in favour of the Director General. Let us examine the said
contention.
15. The Rules made are pursuant to the power conferred on the CBDT
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
10
under section 295 of the Act. The Rules so made, insofar as section 10(23C)
(via) is concerned, have defined the “prescribed authority” in respect of
rd
applications made prior to 3 April 2001 and which were not disposed of by
st th
31 May 2007 as the CBDT.. The notification issued on 30 May 2007 would
be referable to Rule 2CA(1) which has notified the Chief Commissioner or
the Director General, generally, i.e. without any territorial jurisdiction. There
are several Chief Commissioners or Director Generals for various
commissionerates or areas throughout India. The notification only spells out
which of the Director Generals or Chief Commissioners would have
jurisdiction in that area. So read, insofar as Rule 1A is concerned, it is clear
that it will be that Chief Commissioner or Director General for that area
alone would have jurisdiction over that area. The rule cannot be read into
1A which has specifically defined the prescribed authority as CBDT. There is
no delegation of power of the CBDT by the notification to the Director
General or any Commissioner. The notification therefore is clearly
inapplicable insofar as Rule 2CA(1A) is concerned.
16. Having held that the prescribed authority is CBDT – respondent no.1
for the years 19902000 to 200001, the prescribed authority to pass the
order reviewing grant of permission would be CBDT. In our opinion, once a
power is conferred by the Act and the Rules, it is only that authority, who has
been conferred power under the Act and the Rules who alone can assume
jurisdiction. Merely because in the reply to the show cause notice, an
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
11
objection was not raised would not confer power on an authority which
otherwise had no jurisdiction. Clearly therefore the order recalling or
th
reviewing the earlier order dated 8 February 2008 is beyond jurisdiction
and is liable to be set aside.
17. In the light of the above and for the aforesaid reasons, this petition is
disposed of in the following terms:
th
(a) The petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 8
February 2008, more particularly paragraphs 10 and 11 thereof, are set
aside. The power to rescind or recall for the yeas 19992000 to 200001 is to
be exercised by CBDT alone.
(b) The DGIT is directed to consider the pending applications of the
petitioner for the assessment years 200203 to 200405 and for the
assessment years 200506 to 200708.
(c) It is open to the competent authority, if so entitled in law, to take such
steps as he is entitled to.
(d) Considering our order, all parties including the Commissioner of
Appeals to act accordingly and hear the pending appeals and dispose of the
same at the earliest.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::
12
(e) In the event there be an adverse order, the same shall not be acted
upon for a period of 8 weeks from the date of its communication.
(f) It is made clear that in respect of applications for A.Y. 200203
onwards, it will be the respondent no.1 – Director General of Income Tax in
terms of the Rules, who will be the competent authority.
18. We further make it clear that we have not gone into the issues on the
merits and have left all questions open for consideration by the prescribed
authority.
19. The learned counsel for the respondents prays for stay of this order.
The request is rejected. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the
appeals, the respondents shall not make any recovery.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:41:27 :::