Tribunal representation rules upheld where Income-tax procedure and notified departmental appointments prevailed over the Advocates Act

The Tribunal considered whether Departmental Representatives were validly authorised to appear and whether the objection to their appearance could stand. It held that the Income-tax Act is a self-contained code, and that section 255(5) permits procedural rule-making governing representation before the Tribunal. Section 33 of the Advocates Act, being subject to other laws in force, did not override the specific scheme of section 288 of the Income-tax Act and rule 2(ii)(b) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. It further held that appointment by general notification was permissible, and that reference to repealed 1946 Rules did not invalidate the appointments.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Departmental Representatives were validly appointed to appear before the Tribunal and whether the preliminary objection to their appearance was sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a self-contained code and that the power to regulate procedure under section 255(5) includes framing rules governing departmental representation before the Tribunal. It further held that section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 makes that Act subject to any other law for the time being in force, and therefore section 29 of that Act does not override the specific scheme of section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 2(ii)(b) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Tribunal also held that appointment of a departmental representative by the Central Government by general notification was permissible and that the reference in the notifications to the repealed 1946 Rules was not fatal, since the power was referable to the valid rule-making source under the 1963 Rules.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection to the appearance of Shri S.R. Vaish and Shri N.N. Bhatia for the Department was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The departmental representation before the Tribunal was upheld as legally valid, and the matter was directed to proceed to hearing on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent statute authorises procedural rule-making and the statute governing legal practice is expressly subject to other laws in force, a tribunal may validly permit departmental representation by notified representatives appointed under the tribunal rules.

---