the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act and considering the
grant of refund under Section 143(1D) of the Act. The Petitioner before
the Delhi High Court was not granted refund, pending scrutiny
assessment in view of Instruction No.1/2015 dated 13th January, 2015.
The Delhi High Court held that the instruction issued is without
jurisdiction. This for the reason that although Section 119 of the Act does
empower the CBDT to issue instructions for the proper administration of
the Act, this power is hedged in by limitations as provided in the proviso to
Sections 119(1) and also 119(2) of the Act, i.e. the CBDT cannot direct an
Assessing Officer to dispose of a case in a particular manner nor can the
instructions be prejudicial to the assessee. Therefore, the
circulars/orders /instructions issued by the CBDT under Section 119 of
the Act would be binding upon the Revenue only to the extent they are
beneficial to the assessee. Such instructions, if not beneficial to the
assessee, cannot prevail over the Act. In the above view, the Delhi High
Court held that Instruction No.1 of 2015 dated 13th January, 2015 issued
by the CBDT is unsustainable in law and therefore, set it aside. It must
also be pointed out that the Revenue is not disputing the decision of the
Delhi High Court in in Tata Teleservices Ltd. (Supra) either on facts or
in law. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in Smt.
Godavaridevi Saraf (Supra), the officers implementing the Act are bound
by the decision of the Delhi High Court and Instruction No.1 of 2015
dated 13th January, 2015 has ceased to exist. Therefore, no reference to
the above Instruction can be made by the Assessing Officer while disposing
of the Petitioner's application in processing its return under Section 143(1)
of the Act and consequent refund, if any, under Section 143(1D) of the
Act. Needless to state that the Assessing Officer would independently
