When a power is conferred to perform a particular function in a specified manner, it must be exercised only in that manner or not at all: Raipur ITAT
Raipur ITAT in the case of Dolphin Promoters and Builders vs. Addl. CIT, ITA No 58/RPR/2024 has held that when a power is conferred to perform a particular function in a specified manner, it must be exercised only in that manner or not at all. Any authorization issued by an authority lacking such jurisdiction would be liable to be quashed as ultra vires.
Let us have a Short Overview of the case:
The Raipur Bench of the ITAT has held that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax cannot perform the functions or exercise the powers of an Assessing Officer under Section 2(7A) in the absence of an order issued under Section 120(4)(b) by the competent authority.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Nalini Mahajan v. DIT, where it was held that it is now well-settled that when a power is conferred to perform a particular function in a specified manner, it must be exercised only in that manner or not at all. Delegation of power is essentially a legislative function, and such delegation must be explicitly authorized by the statute. The Director, being the delegating authority for certain matters, cannot sub-delegate his power unless expressly permitted by statute. Any authorization issued by an authority lacking such jurisdiction would be liable to be quashed as ultra vires.
The Tribunal, upon a conjoint reading of Section 2(7A) read with Section 120(4)(b) of the Act, observed that, as no order was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 120(4)(b), and in the absence of any separate order authorizing the Additional Commissioner to perform the functions and exercise the powers of an Assessing Officer under Section 2(7A), and also in the absence of an order transferring jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act, the impugned final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 by the Additional CIT was without jurisdiction and is therefore set aside.
The copy of the order is as under:
