Rationalisation of the provisions relating to Appellate Tribunal

By | March 6, 2016
(Last Updated On: March 6, 2016)

Finance Bill 2016

Rationalisation of the provisions relating to Appellate Tribunal

Existing clause (b) of sub-section (3), sub-section (4A) and sub-section (5) of section 252 provide for the appointment and powers of Senior Vice- President of the Appellate Tribunal.

In view of the fact that there are no extra-judicial or administrative duties or difference in the pay scale attached with the post of Senior Vice-president in the Tribunal, it is proposed to omit the reference of “Senior Vice-President”.

Sub-section (2A) of section 253 provides that the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he objects to any direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under sub-section (5) of section 144C in pursuance of which the Assessing Officer has passed an order completing the assessment or reassessment, direct the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order .

Further, sub-section (3A) of section 253 provides that every appeal under sub-section (2A) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the directions of the DRP under sub-section (5) of section 144C.

In line with the decision of the Government to minimise litigation, it is proposed to omit the said sub-sections (2A) and (3A) of section 253 to do away with the filing of appeal by the Assessing Officer against the order of the DRP. Consequent amendments are proposed to be made to sub-section (3A) and (4) of the said provision also.

These amendments will take effect from 1st day of June, 2016.

It is also proposed to provide that in cases where Department is already in appeal against the directions of DRP under sub-section (2A) of the section 253 (as it stood before the amendment of the Finance Act, 2016), no fee shall be payable.
This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st July, 2012.

The existing provisions sub-section (2) of the section 254 of the Act, provide that the Appellate Tribunal may rectify any mistake apparent from the record in its order at any time within four years from the date of the order.

In order to bring certainty to the order of ITAT, it is proposed to amend sub-section (2) of section 254 to provide that the Appellate Tribunal may rectify any mistake apparent from the record in its order at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed.

The existing provision of sub-section (3) of section 255, inter alia, provides that a single member bench may dispose of any case which pertains to an assessee whose total income as computed by the Assessing Officer does not exceed fifteen lakh rupees.

In view of the recent increase in monetary limit for filing appeal before ITAT and to expedite the process of dispute resolution at the level of ITAT, it is proposed to amend the said sub-section (3) so as to provide that a single member bench may dispose of a case where the total income as computed by the Assessing Officer does not exceed fifty lakh rupees.

These amendments will take effect from 1st day of June, 2016.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.