“Chief Commissioner”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(15A) / Section 1172,876 judgments

The decision most relied on for Chief Commissioner is Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 296), cited in 98 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Chief Commissioner

Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT

93 Taxmann.com 296 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Approval granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner under Section 151 for reassessment proceedings under Section 148 must reflect due application of mind. A mere endorsement of "approved" without reasons or reference to material is insufficient, as the approval serves as a safeguard and must be meaningful, not ritualistic or formal.

Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

457 ITR 647 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

The amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, governing the sanction for reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A, applies to cases initiated under the new reassessment regime. The specified authority for granting such sanction becomes the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT

346 ITR 443 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

The reassessment proceedings are invalid if the required sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act is not obtained from the statutorily designated authority or if the approval is granted mechanically without due satisfaction. Approval by a higher authority cannot substitute the satisfaction of the authority specified in Section 151.

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner

1 SCC 405 · 1978 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

When a statutory authority issues an order based on specific grounds, its validity must be assessed solely by those stated grounds and cannot be supported or improved by additional reasons provided later in affidavits or other means. An order that is invalid at its inception cannot be validated by subsequent justifications.

Sahara India v. CIT & Others

216 CTR 303 · 2008 · Reported

citing judgments

The requirement of prior approval from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner under Section 142(2A) is a crucial safeguard against arbitrary assessment, placing a significant responsibility on the approving authority to ensure its genuine application and prevent it from becoming a mere formality.

New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

448 ITR 594 · 2022 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An institution qualifies as an 'educational institution' for tax exemption, including under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), only if it imparts structured, formal education, distinguishing it from general public utility activities under Section 2(15).

Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise

280 ITR 321 · 2006 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that while the Legislature can enact laws retrospectively, this power does not normally extend to creating an offence or penal liability retroactively, nor to withdrawing a benefit already granted under a statute through retrospective amendment.

Oxford Academy for Career Development v. Chief CIT

315 ITR 382 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) has no power to cancel registration granted under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act retrospectively, especially when there is no express provision in the Act for such cancellation and the order is quasi-judicial in nature.

Judgments citing Chief Commissioner

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, -2, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Income-Tax-2, Race Course, Vadodara-390007 Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 7439 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

power of revision u/s 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. Section 263 itself is very clearly worded as under: “263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this

M/S. Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-Operative Societies Union Limited, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

ITA 1355/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

that the Additional CIT could act and exercise the powers of an AO only in consequence upon delegation of such authority by the Board, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax as envisaged in the provisions of section 120(4)(b) of the Act. However, the power ... given to the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax or Commissioner of Income-tax being in consequence upon the delegation of power duly authorized by the Legislature, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax were duty bound, if at all they were to exercise such delegated power

M/S. Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-Operative Societies Union Limited, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue stands dismissed

ITA 1354/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR

Section 120(4)(b)Section 124Section 2

general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,- (b) empower the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that the powers and functions conferred on, or as the case may be, assigned to, the Assessing Officer ... general or special order and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein empower the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that the powers and functions conferred on or as the case may be, assigned to, the Assessing Officer

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhopal vs. DB Power Ltd, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 73/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viib)Section 69C

Assessing Officer, after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case ... notice ‘shall’ be issued u/s 148 by AO after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by AO that it is a ‘fit case’ for issue

DB Power Ltd, Bhopal vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 68/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viib)Section 69C

M/S. Wrinkle Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 426/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall communicate the order passed by him to the assessee and to the 16 Chief Commissioner or Commissioner]. 8. Principles governing the exercise of powers by the First Appellate Authority are contemplated under sections 250 and 251 of the Act, breach of which

Palak Highrise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 218/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall communicate the order passed by him to the assessee and to the 16 Chief Commissioner or Commissioner]. 7. Principles governing the exercise of powers by the First Appellate Authority are contemplated under sections 250 and 251 of the Act, breach of which

Shri. Rahul Udayashankar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 869/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 11Section 143Section 250Section 69A

section as to whether an Assessing officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner; or where the question is one relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners ... Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Board or by such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify. (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question

Mysore Finlease Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 8821/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 132

case of Sahara India vs. CIT and Others (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) where the discussion on the requirement of prior approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of provision of Section 142(2A) of the Act had been made, it was noted that the Apex Court has held ... therein that the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an in -built protection against arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see that

Twinings (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)

reproduced as under: “(5) “approved gratuity fund” means a gratuity fund has been and continues to be approved by the [Principal Chief Comjmissioner or] Chief Commissioner of [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] in accordance with the rules contained in Part C of the Fourth Schedule.” (ii) Application for approval of gratuity ... those expressions in rule 2 of Part A in relation to provident funds. Approval and withdrawal of approval. 2. (1) The 1 [ 2 [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or 3 [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner]] may accord approval to any gratuity fund which, in his opinion, complies with the requirements

Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1062/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year, or (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the "[Principal Chief Com missioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner before the date of search, or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly

Suksham Finlease & Investment P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8321/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Section 147Section 151Section 234BSection 69C

four years from the end of relevant assessment year at the time of issue of notice, necessary sanction has to be obtained from Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax or Commissioner of Income Tax, in view of the amended provision of section 151 w.e.f

Smita Biswas, Jalpaiguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 127(1)Section 143(2)

provisions of section 127 of the Act as under: Power to transfer cases (1) The [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after

Goldiam Jewellery Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC 1(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed partly

ITA 3219/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Goldiam International Limited Plot No.16/17 Gems & Dcit, Central Circle 1(2) Vs. Jewelry Complex Seepz Sez Mumbai Andheri East, Mumbai-400 096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg2271J

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar, DR

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

assessee. It was stated that reopening was made after approval taken from principal Commissioner of income tax it should have been taken from principal chief Commissioner of income tax since the reassessment is initiated after three years of the end of the assessment year. It was further stated that ... issued on 28/7/2022 is approved by the principal Commissioner of income tax. The claim of the assessee is that the principal chief Commissioner of income tax should have granted such approvalas more than three years have elapsed. He submits that for the identical as the year in case of Siemens

Sheena Jain L/H of Late Sh. Madan Walia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-05, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 153A

system, the communication may be issued manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the file and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of income tax. In cases where manual communication 'is required to be issued due to delay in PAN migration, the proposal seeking ... shall state the fact that the communication is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of Income-Tax for issue of manual communication in the following format- This communication issues manually without a DIN on account

DCIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Ashok Minda, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Ashok Minda Vs. Acit 17, Olof Flam Marg, Central Circle -13 Vasant Vihar-I, South West, New Delhi Delhi, New Delhi-110006 Pan No.Aoepm1451M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit Vs. Ashok Minda Central Circle -13 17, Olof Flam Marg, New Delhi Vasant Vihar-I, South West, Delhi, New Delhi- 110006 Pan No.Aoepm1451M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 69BSection 69C

Ashok Minda, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi

ITA 1512/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Section 108Section 132Section 69BSection 69C

system. the communication may be issued manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the file and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of income- tax. In cases where manual communication is required to be issued due to delay in PAN migration, the proposal seeking

Anamika Garg, Dewas vs. CIT, Ujjain

ITA 214/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Anamika Garg, Pcit, 117, Tukoganj Marg, Ujjain बनाम/ Nayapura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aiwpg 3922 D Assessee By Shri Suresh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

power of PCIT. Ld. AR submitted that the verdict of section 263 is very clear, specific and unambiguous which prescribes thus: “The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers

Raj Kumar, Bhiwani vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1401/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Lalit Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. N. Barnwal, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 147Section 153A

Ty Spl85Z Suthamalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ariyalur vs. CIT(A), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 909/CHNY/2023[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, IRS, JCIT

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the outset, the ld.Counsel of the assessee filed copy of condonation petition dated 27.12.2023 filed before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai u/s.119 of the Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal which reads as under:- ‘’I wish to bring ... aside and the matter can be remitted back to his file to decide afresh after the decision of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai on condonation petition for condoning the delay in filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year 2018-2019. For this proposition