GLOBE AGENCIES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the statutory power to direct the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148. Such directions are beyond the scope of the appellate authority's powers.
What were the facts?
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal against a rectification order but directed the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148. The assessee appealed this direction, arguing the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) exceeded its statutory powers by directing the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 154,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 150,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
Appellant, M/s. Globe Agencies (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-25, New Delhi under section 154/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on the grounds inter alia that :-
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in exceeding his jurisdiction and directing the AO to take action u/s 147/148 read with the provisions of section 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is beyond the scope of the statutory powers and provisions and hence, the direction should be deleted by expunging the same.”
Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessment in this case was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 28.02.2013 by making disallowances of Rs.29,62,490/-. However, thereafter, AO by invoking the provisions contained u/s 154/143(3) of the Act rectified the assessment order dated 28.02.2013 by making disallowances of Rs.44,00,000/- on account of salary paid to the partner and assessed the total income at Rs.73,62,490/-.
Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing an appeal against the order u/s 154/143(3) of the Act who has allowed the appeal but given direction to the AO to proceed against the assessee u/s 147/148 read with section 150 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the directions issued by the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
From the facts narrated above, the sole question arises for determination in this case is :-
“as to whether ld. CIT (A) has erred on law and facts by exceeding statutory powers in directing the AO to proceed u/s 147/148 read with section 150 of the Act against the assessee?”
Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order contended that ld. CIT (A) has no statutory power to issue directions to the AO to proceed u/s 147/148 of the Act and relied upon the order passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Atul Engg. Udyog TC-609-HC-2014(All.) and order passed by coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of M/s. GI Power Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT in for AY 2007-08 order dated 23.03.2016.
However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the ld. CIT (A).
For ready perusal, directions issued by the ld. CIT (A) are extracted as under :-
“8.7 In the instant case, it is quite clear that the nature of the income involved i.e. the allowance of expenditure of RS.44,00,000/- towards salary to partners was not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a mistake which was to be rectified u/s 154. Hence the action of the Assessing Officer of reassessing the Income of the Appellant Firm u/s 154/143(3) by adding the amount of Rs.44,00,000/- cannot be approved. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.44,00,000/- is hereby deleted. However, in view of the fact that the expenditure of Rs.44,00,000/- claimed by the appellant as salary to partners was not allowable, particularly in view of the partnership deed dated 01.04.92, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to take action u/s 147/148 read with the provisions of section 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
Bare perusal of the directions issued by the ld. CIT (A) goes to show that when ld. CIT (A) has exercised his statutory power in deciding the issue raised by the assessee he has no power to issue directions to the AO to proceed against the assessee u/s 147/148 of the Act. Because a cursory reading of sections 147/148 of the Act makes it clear that power u/ss 147/148 conferred by the Act on AO are to be used by him independently only if he has reason to believe that any income and also other income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the year under consideration.
AO is not obliged to proceed on the basis of directions issued by his higher authority which would otherwise amounts to borrowed satisfaction. So, the directions issued by ld. CIT (A) are beyond his power conferred by section 250 of the Act.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Banwari Lal & Sons (2002) 254 ITR 518 (Del.) while deciding the identical issue held that, “the appellate authority cannot extend the statutory time limit for reassessment by issuing suo motu directions illegally or unrelated to the subject matter of the appeal being decided by the ld. CIT (A) against the impugned order of rectification.”
In view of what has been discussed above, since ld. CIT (A) being a statutory authority has no power to exceed his jurisdiction beyond the subject matter of the appeal being decided by him against the impugned order of rectification, the directions issued by him are not sustainable, hence set aside. However, concerned AO is at liberty to proceed against the assessee if so desires only in accordance with the provisions contained u/s 147/148 of the Act. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 26th day of November, 2021.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026