Court directs reconstitution of Special Bench for debarment decision within three months

The Court directed respondent nos. 1 & 2 to reconstitute a Special Bench to decide on the debarment of a former member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The Court emphasized that the reconstitution, hearing, and decision should be completed within the stipulated period, without delving into the merits of the matter. The petitioner did not press the petition further, and the Court discharged the rule without imposing costs on either party.

---

---

Issues:
1. Constitution of a Special Bench to decide on the debarment of a former member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Delay in pronouncement of decision by the Special Bench.
3. Request for reconstitution of the Special Bench and a direction for a fresh decision within a stipulated period.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a question regarding the debarment of a former member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Shri Deepak R. Shah, from practicing before the Tribunal due to the insertion of Rule 13 E in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963. A Special Bench was constituted to decide this question, but the decision was not pronounced even after the hearing was completed on 20/1/2012.

2. The petitioner requested the Court for a direction to reconstitute the Special Bench as one member had retired, and to decide the reference afresh within three months. The respondent did not object to this request. The Court, without delving into the merits of the matter, disposed of the case by directing respondent nos. 1 & 2 to reconstitute the Special Bench and decide the reference within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

3. The Court clarified that the reconstitution of the Special Bench, the hearing of the reference, and the final decision should be completed within the stipulated three-month period. The petitioner, in light of this direction, did not press the petition further. The Court emphasized that it had not entered into the merits of the matter, keeping all contentions of the parties open, and discharged the rule without imposing any costs on either party.

---