Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Controller could remand the appeal to the Controller for enquiry into impersonation and the validity of the appeal instead of deciding the matter himself.
Analysis: Section 62 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 empowers the Appellate Controller to make or cause further enquiry before disposing of an appeal and thereafter to pass such order as he thinks fit. That power does not authorise delegation of the appellate function on matters which the Appellate Controller is himself required to decide. The question whether the appeal was properly instituted lay within his own jurisdiction and could not be sent back to the Controller for decision. A remand is justified only where the appellate authority cannot reach a conclusion on the material before it and further enquiry is genuinely necessary; it cannot be used to abdicate the appellate function.
Conclusion: The remand order was invalid and was set aside. The matter was sent back to the Appellate Controller for disposal according to law, with the appeal succeeding for statistical purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority cannot delegate or abdicate its atory function on matters within its own competence by remitting them to a lower authority; remand is permissible only to enable necessary further enquiry where the appellate authority cannot itself reach a conclusion on the existing record.