1962 (9) TMI 76 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal allows separate judgments for collaboration, deems provisions directory, rules in favor of department

The court held that separate judgments by Tribunal Members are permissible as long as they collaborate to reach a unanimous decision, emphasizing that the ... - Issues:Interpretation of section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act and rules 2 and 33 framed thereunder regarding the requirement of a formal order by the Tribunal, the permissibility of separate judgments by Tribunal Members, and the consequences of the absence of a formal order.Analysis:The judgment revolves around a question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the interpretation of section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act and related rules. The issue arose from a case where two Tribunal Members passed separate but concurring judgments dismissing an appeal. The petitioner contended that there should have been a formal order by the Tribunal, not individual judgments. The court analyzed the provisions of section 33 and rules 2 and 33, emphasizing that a Tribunal expresses itself through its Members, and collaboration among Members is essential. The court cited precedents to support the permissibility of separate judgments by Tribunal Members as long as they collaborate to reach a unanimous judgment.The court rejected the petitioner's argument that a formal order on behalf of the Tribunal was necessary, highlighting that the absence of such an order, in this case, was not fatal. The court deemed the provisions of section 33 and rule 33 as directory rather than mandatory, citing Supreme Court precedents to distinguish between mandatory and directory provisions in statutes. The court emphasized that the absence of a formal order, while a procedural irregularity, did not invalidate the judgment as the Tribunal Members had deliberated, reached a consensus, and signed separate judgments.In conclusion, the court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions, answering the referred question in favor of the department. The court directed the assessee to pay costs and assessed the counsel's fee accordingly. The judgment clarified the procedural aspects of Tribunal orders, emphasizing that adherence to procedure should facilitate justice rather than impede it, and minor procedural errors do not invalidate substantive decisions.