Composite appellate order valid where no statutory prohibition exists and hearing together does not prejudice party rights.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was competent to dispose of three appeals concerning different assessment years by a single composite order. Sections 30 and 31 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, regulated appeals but did not prescribe the form of the appellate order, so in the absence of any express prohibition the appellate authority could adopt a practical procedure that did not affect party rights or breach natural justice. The appeals were heard together for convenience, and the parties' concurrence could be inferred from the circumstances. The objection that no inherent power existed was rejected because the issue concerned only the form of disposal, not an impermissible consolidation of appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was competent to pass one composite order disposing of three appeals relating to different assessment years.

Analysis: Sections 30 and 31 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, provided for appeals but did not prescribe the manner or form of the appellate order. In the absence of an express procedural prohibition, the appellate authority could evolve its own procedure so long as it did not infringe the rights of the parties under the Act or the principles of natural justice. On the facts, the appeals were heard together for convenience and the parties' concurrence could be inferred from the circumstances. The objection based on absence of inherent power was rejected, because the case concerned only the form of disposal and not an impermissible consolidation of appeals.

Conclusion: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was competent to pass one composite order in the three appeals, and the question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the revenue.

---