1976 (8) TMI 63 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Validates Department Rep Appointments under Tribunal Rules 1963, Confirms IT Act Precedence

SAGARMAL SARAWGI. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the Departmental Representatives' appointments under the Tribunal Rules, 1963, despite references to the repealed 1946 ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the appearance by the Departmental Representatives under the Tribunal Rules, 1946.2. Validity of general appointments of Departmental Representatives without reference to individual cases.3. Conflict between the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 and the Advocates Act, 1961 regarding representation before the Tribunal.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Appearance by the Departmental Representatives under the Tribunal Rules, 1946:The learned counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection against the appearance of the Departmental Representatives, Shri S.R. Vaish and Shri N.N. Bhatia, citing that their appointments were under the Tribunal Rules, 1946, which had been repealed by the Tribunal Rules, 1963. The Tribunal noted that the Central Government had the jurisdiction to appoint the representatives under Rule 2(ii)(b) of the Tribunal Rules, 1963. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Hazarmal Kthialal vs. ITO, which stated that the exercise of power should be referable to a jurisdiction that conferred validity upon it. Thus, despite the notifications mistakenly referring to the 1946 Rules, the appointments were valid under the 1963 Rules.2. Validity of General Appointments of Departmental Representatives Without Reference to Individual Cases:The counsel for the assessee argued that the term 'IT authority' and 'proceedings' in Rule 2(ii)(b) were singular, implying that an authorised representative should be appointed for each individual proceeding. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the IT Act, 1961, and the Tribunal Rules, 1963, provided a framework for general appointments by the Central Government. The Tribunal emphasized that the representation by the Departmental Authorities before the Tribunal was consistent with the principles of representation under Section 288 of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal found no practical difficulty or ambiguity in the system of general appointments and upheld the validity of Rule 2(ii)(b).3. Conflict Between the Provisions of the IT Act, 1961 and the Advocates Act, 1961 Regarding Representation Before the Tribunal:The counsel for the assessee contended that the Advocates Act, 1961, required representation by enrolled Advocates, conflicting with Section 288 of the IT Act, 1961, which allowed other categories of representatives. The Tribunal clarified that Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961, made its provisions subject to other laws in force, including the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the IT Act was a self-contained code, and its provisions regarding representation took precedence. The Tribunal concluded that the rules framed under the IT Act, 1961, including Rule 2(ii)(b), were valid and not inconsistent with the Advocates Act, 1961.Conclusion:The Tribunal found no substance in the objections raised by the assessee regarding the appearance of the Departmental Representatives, Shri S.R. Vaish and Shri N.N. Bhatia. The Tribunal upheld the validity of their appointments and the general framework for representation by the Department under the IT Act, 1961, and the Tribunal Rules, 1963. The appeal was directed to be fixed for hearing in the normal course.