TMI Blog1975 (2) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ociation of persons. The petitioner had been assessed as an individual for the aforesaid assessment years in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Thereafter, a Commission known as Vivian Bose Commission was appointed to enquire into the affairs of various companies with which the appellant was alleged to have been associated. On the facts disclosed in the report of enquiry, the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle A, New Delhi, issued the aforesaid two sets of notices to the petitioner under section 148 of the Act. The notices informed the petitioner that these were issued "after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi". This claim was questioned by the petitioner in the High Court and one of the grounds on which the validity of the notices was challenged was that sanction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes had not been taken before the notices were issued as required by section 151 of the Act. The High Court accepting this contention quashed all the six notices served on the petitioner and by issuing a writ of prohibition restrained the appellants, the Union of India, the Central Board of D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rman and the Member of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In this document, entry No. 7 in the list of work allotted to the Chairman reads: "all assessment work of Income-tax". It was contended that Shri Narayana Row had, therefore, no authority to deal with cases for reopening of assessments and as such the impugned notices issued upon his satisfaction were invalid. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit of Shri P.G. Gandhi, it is admitted that "all assessment work of income-tax" had been assigned to the Chairman under office order dated January 1, 1964, which included matters relating to the reopening of assessments under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but the paragraph adds that "later with the approval of the Central Government this item of work was assigned to the Member of the Board, Shri S. A. L. Narayana Row, who in this case accorded the sanction." An affidavit affirmed by Shri J. P. Singh, who at the relevant time was the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and ex-officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, was also filed on behalf of the appellants. Paragraphs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard these writ petitions. We have also looked into the copies of these office notes which are on record. It appears that on March 13, 1964, Shri J. P. Singh, Chairman of the Board, recorded the following note: "M (I ED) may also consider whether he could take up the cases for sanction of reopening of assessments (old section 34)." This was obviously a note for consideration of the other Member of the Board who, on the next day, recorded his consent to this proposal in the following words: "I will take up cases of reopening of assessment also." Below the sentence conveying Shri Row's assent to the proposal, the Chairman wrote "Thanks". The matter however did not rest there. On May 14, 1964, the following note was put up by Shri B. B. Ghosh, Under Secretary: "Rule 4 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Regulation of Transaction of Business) Rules, 1964, envisage that the Chairman may by an order made with the previous approval of the Central Government distribute the business of the Board among himself and the other Members. Accordingly, the office Order already issued in the matter will require amendment. Draft D. O. is submitted for consideration. We may also i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressing the approval led to the observation that Shri Singh's affidavit was not in line with the office notes and also the ultimate finding that the notices issued upon the satisfaction of the member of the Board was "without jurisdiction and authority". Dr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent, contended (1) that the material on record did not prove beyond doubt that the Central Government had approved the proposal of the Chairman to alter the original distribution of work and (2) that in any event the law required the approval to be expressed in the shape of a formal order. Referring to the office note of the Chairman dated June 18, 1964, Dr. Singhvi submitted that it was not clear from this note what exactly was considered unnecessary--a formal order expressing the approval, or getting the proposed alteration approved by the Central Government ? It was argued that as the suggested alteration was consider "just a minor internal arrangement," it was likely that the Chairman thought that no prior approval of the Central Government was necessary before the altered arrangement was put into operation, in which case the notices would be invalid in view of rule 4 of the Central B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assistance on the question whether in this case the approval of the Central Government should have been recorded in a formal order. Dr. Singhvi characterised the distribution of the business of the Board by the Chairman as sub-delegated legislation and referred to a number of authorities to show that the law required publication of such sub-delegated legislation which implied that it must be expressed in a formal document. It was submitted that this was necessary to enable the persons affected by such sub-delegated legislation to ascertain what the legislation was. We do not think that the distribution of work by the Chairman of the Board can be equated with legislation. The allocation of business and the approval are matters of internal arrangement not affecting anyone's rights. Initially the Board consisting of the Chairman and the member had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter in question. Thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 4 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Regulation of Transaction of Business) Rules, 1964, the Chairman with the approval of the Central Government distributed the business of the Board between himself and the member, keeping all a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
