Extension of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Member's Tenure to Age 62 Upheld

The court determined that the applicant's tenure as a Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be extended until the age of 62, in accordance with the provisions existing before the 2017 Rules. The rejection of her candidature based on procedural grounds was deemed invalid, and her appointment was considered part of the selection process initiated in 2013, predating the 2017 Rules. The court's decision was based on interpretations of relevant rules and previous judgments emphasizing appointments made before the enactment of certain statutes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1963 regarding the retirement age of Members.
2. Validity of the applicant's appointment and tenure based on the selection process initiated in 2013.
3. Application of the judgments in Rojer Mathews vs South Indian Bank Limited and Madras Bar Association vs Union of India on the appointments made before 2017 Rules.
4. Determination of the governing provisions for the applicant's appointment.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case involves interpreting Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1963, which specifies the retirement age of Members as 62 years. The question is whether the applicant should be allowed to continue in service until the age of 62 based on this rule.

2. The applicant applied for a position in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in 2013. Despite being initially excluded from the panel of names for appointment, a subsequent judgment by the High Court of Calcutta directed the consideration of her candidature afresh. The applicant received a letter of appointment in 2018 following this judgment, and it was argued that her appointment should be governed by the position before the 2017 Rules came into effect.

3. The judgments in Rojer Mathews vs South Indian Bank Limited and Madras Bar Association vs Union of India are crucial in this context. These judgments directed that appointments should be made in accordance with the respective statutes before the enactment of the Finance Bill 2017. The applicant's representation and the interim orders by the Court further emphasized the need to consider appointments made before April 2021 under the parent statutes.

4. The final determination was made based on the applicant's entitlement to continue in service until the age of 62 as per the provisions existing before the 2017 Rules. The rejection of her candidature based on the absence of her income tax return for a specific assessment year was deemed untenable by the Calcutta High Court, and her appointment was considered to be part of the selection process initiated in 2013, predating the 2017 Rules.

5. Consequently, the Interlocutory Application was disposed of, affirming that the applicant's tenure should be extended until she reaches the age of 62 years based on the rules applicable before the 2017 Rules came into effect.

---