Power to issue instruction for the purpose of the proper administration of this Act : Clause 239 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 119 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Clause 239 Instructions to subordinate authorities. - Income Tax Bill, 2025

Clause 239 Instructions to subordinate authorities. Income Tax Bill, 2025 Introduction Clause 239 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 ( the Bill ) and Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) are pivotal statutory provisions that regulate the powers of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to issue orders, instructions, and directions to subordinate income-tax authorities. These provisions serve as the legal backbone for the administrative control and standardization of the income-tax regime in India, ensuring uniformity in the application of the law and efficient tax administration. The evolution from Section 119 to Clause 239 reflects both continuity and nuanced changes in legislative intent, operational scope, and procedural safeguards. This commentary provides an in-depth analysis of Clause 239, elucidates its objectives, interprets its key clauses, discusses practical implications, and offers a comparative analysis with Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . Objective and Purpose The primary objective of both Clause 239 and Section 119 is to empower the CBDT to guide, control, and streamline the functioning of income-tax authorities by issuing binding orders, instructions, and directions. This mechanism is essential for: Ensuring uniformity and consistency in the administration of tax laws across the country. Facilitating efficient and effective collection of revenue. Enabling the Board to respond to emerging administrative challenges and policy considerations. Providing relief in cases of genuine hardship to taxpayers by relaxing procedural requirements or condoning delays. Balancing administrative control with judicial independence in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions by appellate authorities. The legislative intent is to strike a balance between centralized oversight for uniformity and the autonomy of tax authorities in individual assessments and appellate proceedings. This is achieved by circumscribing the Board s powers with specific safeguards and exceptions. Detailed Analysis of Clause 239 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (1) General Power of the Board to Issue Orders, Instructions, and Directions Clause 239(1) vests the Board with broad authority to issue orders, instructions, and directions to other income-tax authorities for the proper administration of the Act. All authorities and persons employed in the execution of the Act are mandated to observe and follow such directives. This provision is foundational for administrative discipline and operational efficiency, ensuring that the Board can implement policy decisions, clarify ambiguities, and issue standard operating procedures. This general power, however, is not unfettered. It is subject to express limitations set out in sub-section (2), which act as safeguards against potential overreach or encroachment on the quasi-judicial discretion of subordinate authorities. (2) Safeguards: Prohibition on Interference in Individual Cases and Appellate Discretion Clause 239(2) imposes two critical limitations on the Board s powers: The Board cannot issue any order, instruction, or direction that would require an income-tax authority to make a particular assessment or dispose of a particular case in a particular manner. The Board cannot interfere with the discretion of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) in the exercise of their appellate functions. These safeguards are vital to uphold the principles of natural justice and the independence of quasi-judicial authorities. They ensure that while the Board can guide the administration in general, it cannot dictate the outcome of specific cases or undermine the autonomy of appellate authorities. This preserves the integrity of the adjudicatory process and protects taxpayers from arbitrary administrative influence. (3) Specific Powers and Relaxations Clause 239(3) elaborates on the Board s powers, providing for specific administrative interventions, subject to certain conditions: (a) General or Special Orders for Efficient Management: The Board may issue, from time to time, general or special orders to ensure proper and efficient management of assessment and revenue collection. These orders may relate to the relaxation of specified provisions (e.g., sections 263, 270, 271, 279, 280, 287, 298, 398(3), 406, 407, 423, 424, 425, 427, 428, 439, 448, 449, or otherwise). Such orders may set forth directions or instructions (not prejudicial to assessees) regarding guidelines, principles, or procedures for assessment, collection, or initiation of penalty proceedings. If deemed necessary in the public interest, these orders may be published and circulated for general information. (b) Condonation of Delay in Application or Claim: To avoid genuine hardship, the Board may authorize any income-tax authority (except Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals)) to admit applications or claims for exemption, deduction, refund, or other reliefs after the expiry of the statutory period. Such applications must be dealt with on merits as per law. This provision is a significant taxpayer-friendly measure, providing flexibility in exceptional circumstances. (c) Relaxation of Deduction Requirements: The Board may, by general or special order (with reasons specified), relax any requirement in Chapter IV or VIII, where the assessee failed to comply with such requirement for claiming deduction, subject to: The default was due to circumstances beyond the assessee s control. The assessee complied with the requirement before completion of assessment for the relevant tax year. This enables relief in cases of procedural lapses that are not attributable to the assessee s fault, provided compliance is achieved before finalization of assessment. These powers are without prejudice to the general power under sub-section (1), indicating that they are additional and do not restrict the Board s broader authority. (4) Parliamentary Oversight Clause 239(4) introduces a transparency mechanism by requiring that every order issued under sub-section (3)(c) be laid before each House of Parliament. This ensures legislative oversight over the exercise of the Board s discretionary powers in relaxing statutory requirements, reinforcing accountability and transparency. Practical Implications For Taxpayers: The provisions allow for relief in cases of procedural non-compliance due to genuine hardship, subject to safeguards. Taxpayers can seek condonation of delay or relaxation of requirements, enhancing fairness and flexibility in the tax regime. For Tax Authorities: The binding nature of the Board s orders ensures uniformity in administration, reduces interpretational discrepancies, and facilitates efficient revenue collection. The prohibition on interference in individual cases protects the autonomy of assessing and appellate authorities. For the CBDT: The Board is empowered to respond to administrative exigencies, address systemic issues, and implement policy decisions through binding instructions, subject to transparency and oversight requirements. Procedural Impact: The requirement to lay certain orders before Parliament introduces a check against arbitrary exercise of power, while publication of general orders ensures public awareness and compliance. Comparative Analysis: Clause 239 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1. Structure and Wording Both Clause 239 and Section 119 are similarly structured, with sub-sections covering the general power to issue instructions, limitations on such power, specific instances of administrative intervention, and provisions for transparency. The language of Clause 239 is more streamlined and updated, reflecting contemporary drafting standards and incorporating lessons from the operationalization of Section 119 over several decades. 2. Scope of Powers The general power to issue orders, instructions, and directions is substantially similar in both provisions. Both require subordinate authorities to observe and follow the Board s directives, establishing a clear chain of command and administrative discipline. 3. Safeguards Against Overreach The express prohibition on directing individual assessments or interfering in appellate discretion is identically retained in both provisions. This reflects a strong and consistent legislative intent to insulate quasi-judicial functions from administrative interference, a principle repeatedly upheld by judicial precedents. 4. Specific Administrative Powers Relaxation of Provisions: Section 119(2)(a) refers to a wide array of sections (including those relating to assessment, reassessment, rectification, penalty, etc.) for which the Board may issue orders, while Clause 239(3)(a) lists a different set of sections, reflecting an updated legislative framework in the 2025 Bill. Notably, Clause 239 refers to sections relevant to the new Bill, omitting those obsolete or replaced in the new regime. Both provisions allow the Board to issue general or special orders regarding classes of income or cases, with the caveat that such directions must not be prejudicial to assessees. Condonation of Delay: Both provisions empower the Board to authorize condonation of delay in filing applications for exemption, deduction, refund, or other relief, emphasizing relief in cases of genuine hardship. The exception of Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) as authorities for such condonation is maintained in both, preserving the independence of appellate authorities. Relaxation of Requirements for Deductions: Section 119(2)(c) permits relaxation for requirements under Chapter IV or Chapter VI-A, whereas Clause 239(3)(c) limits this to Chapter IV or VIII, aligning with the reorganization of chapters in the 2025 Bill. The conditions for such relaxation (default due to circumstances beyond control and subsequent compliance before assessment completion) are consistently retained. 5. Transparency and Parliamentary Oversight Both provisions require that every order issued under the relaxation clause be laid before each House of Parliament. This ensures legislative scrutiny and accountability, a feature that strengthens the checks and balances in the exercise of administrative discretion. 6. Evolution and Modernization Clause 239 reflects an effort to modernize and rationalize the statutory framework, updating references to relevant sections and chapters, and streamlining language for clarity. The shift from Chapter VI-A in Section 119 to Chapter VIII in Clause 239 may indicate a reclassification of deduction provisions in the new Bill, requiring careful cross-referencing for practitioners. Moreover, Clause 239(3)(a) updates the list of sections for which relaxation may be granted, aligning with the new legislative architecture and possibly omitting provisions that are no longer relevant or have been subsumed under new sections. 7. Unique Features and Potential Issues Ambiguities in Scope: The phrase not being prejudicial to assessees in both provisions could be subject to interpretational disputes, especially in cases where a direction, though general in nature, may have indirect adverse consequences for certain taxpayers. Judicial clarification may be required to delineate the boundaries of this safeguard. Administrative Discretion: While the provisions empower the Board to relax requirements or condone delays, the criteria for genuine hardship and circumstances beyond control are inherently subjective. Past judicial pronouncements have emphasized the need for reasoned orders and non-arbitrariness in the exercise of such discretion. Procedural Safeguards: The requirement for reasons to be specified in relaxation orders (Clause 239(3)(c)) and for such orders to be laid before Parliament introduces procedural rigor, reducing the risk of arbitrary exercise but also potentially increasing administrative workload and delay. Comparative Analysis in table: Clause 239 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Aspect Clause 239 (2025 Bill) Section 119 (1961 Act) Observations General Power to Issue Instructions Yes (Sub-section 1) Yes (Sub-section 1) Substantially similar language and scope Prohibition on Individual Case Directions Yes (Sub-section 2) Yes (Proviso to Sub-section 1) Both protect quasi-judicial independence Specific Administrative Powers Sub-section 3 (a)-(c) Sub-section 2 (a)-(c) Similar, with differences in referenced sections and chapters Publication of Orders Yes (Sub-section 3(a)(ii)) Yes (Sub-section 2(a)) Both allow public interest publication Admission of Belated Claims Yes (Sub-section 3(b)) Yes (Sub-section 2(b)) Excludes appellate authorities in both Relaxation of Procedural Requirements Yes (Sub-section 3(c)) Yes (Sub-section 2(c)) References to different chapters; similar conditions Parliamentary Oversight Yes (Sub-section 4) Yes (Proviso to 2(c)) Ensures accountability Enumerated Sections/Chapters Lists new/revised sections Lists sections as per 1961 Act Reflects statutory restructuring Terminology Tax year , Chapter IV or VIII Previous year , Chapter IV or VI-A Modernized language in 2025 Bill Ambiguities and Potential Issues Scope of Board s Discretion: While the powers are broad, the requirement that instructions not be prejudicial to assessees may be subject to interpretation and could give rise to litigation if taxpayers perceive instructions as overreaching. Restructuring of Chapters and Sections: The changes in referenced sections and chapters may lead to transitional issues, especially during the migration from the 1961 Act to the new Bill. Cross-referencing and interpretation challenges may arise. Consistency in Application: The effectiveness of the provision depends on the Board s judicious exercise of its powers. Overuse or underuse of relaxation powers could respectively lead to administrative laxity or continued hardship for taxpayers. Conclusion Clause 239 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 , largely continues the framework established by Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , with necessary updates to reflect the restructured legislative landscape. The core principles-centralized administrative control, protection of quasi-judicial independence, taxpayer relief mechanisms, and transparency-remain intact. The modernization of language, updating of referenced sections, and alignment with new chapter structures demonstrate legislative responsiveness to evolving administrative and policy needs. The practical impact of these provisions is significant for all stakeholders: taxpayers benefit from avenues for relief in genuine cases of hardship; tax authorities gain from standardized procedures and administrative guidance; and the Board retains the ability to ensure efficient tax administration while being subject to transparency and accountability measures. The continued emphasis on safeguards against administrative overreach and the maintenance of appellate independence are crucial for upholding taxpayer rights and the integrity of the tax system. Going forward, areas that may require further judicial or legislative clarification include the interpretation of prejudicial to assessees, the standards for establishing genuine hardship, and the operationalization of the new chapter references in the Bill. As the new regime under the Income Tax Bill, 2025, is implemented, careful monitoring of the exercise of the Board s powers under Clause 239 will be essential to ensure that the balance between administrative efficiency and taxpayer protection is maintained. Full Text : Clause 239 Instructions to subordinate authorities.