Interlocutory part-payment orders can be challenged in appeal from the final dismissal, and appellate power includes modification.

An interlocutory part-payment direction made in the first appeal was held challengeable in an appeal against the later summary dismissal for non-compliance, because it did not attain separate finality merely by not being independently appealed. The Revenue's reliance on a Delhi High Court ruling was rejected as distinguishable, since the broader rule on challenging procedural orders in an appeal from the final order had not been considered there. The appellate authority's powers were also held to include modification of the part-payment requirement, and the reference was answered substantially in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the part-payment order passed in the first appeal could be questioned in the second appeal against the summary dismissal for non-payment and whether it had attained finality. (ii) Whether the Tribunal could distinguish or decline to follow the Delhi High Court decision relied upon by the Revenue. (iii) Whether the Tribunal had power to modify the amount of part payment while hearing the second appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the part-payment order passed in the first appeal could be questioned in the second appeal against the summary dismissal for non-payment and whether it had attained finality.

Analysis: The part-payment direction was held to be a procedural or interlocutory step in aid of the final disposal of the first appeal and not an order whose finality, in the sense contended by the Revenue, prevented challenge in an appeal against the later order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance. The words used in the appellate provision were held not to compel separate appeals against every procedural direction. The Court applied the principle that interlocutory orders which do not finally determine rights may be questioned in an appeal from the final order.

Conclusion: The part-payment order could be challenged in the second appeal against the summary dismissal order, and it did not attain an unassailable finality merely because no separate appeal was filed against it.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could distinguish or decline to follow the Delhi High Court decision relied upon by the Revenue.

Analysis: The decision relied upon by the Revenue was not accepted as laying down a contrary rule. It was distinguished because the wider principles governing interlocutory orders and appellate challenge to such orders in an appeal from the final order were not considered there. The Court held that the Tribunal's ultimate conclusion remained supportable on the governing principles recognized by this Court and the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's ultimate conclusion was sustained, and no interference was called for on the basis of the Delhi High Court decision.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal had power to modify the amount of part payment while hearing the second appeal.

Analysis: The appellate provision conferred powers on the Tribunal, acting in appeal, to pass appropriate orders in the appeal and to modify the assessment-related directions as warranted. The Court held that those powers included the authority to modify the part-payment requirement, and the correctness of the quantum fixed in the exercise of discretion was not itself in issue in the reference.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had power to modify the part-payment order.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in substance in favour of the assessee, with the Tribunal's approach to the maintainability of the challenge to the part-payment order and its power to modify that order being upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory or procedural order made in the course of an appeal may be challenged in an appeal against the final order, and the appellate authority's power to dispose of the appeal includes power to modify such procedural directions where the statute confers broad appellate authority.

---