TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (2) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....latter company was the managing agents of the Asher Textiles Ltd. The assessee was a Joint Managing Director of the Textile Corporation (Private) Ltd. along with one P. D. Asher. The assessee sold on December 21, 1954 his entire holding in two companies to Asher and some of his relations. These sales resulted in a profit of Rs. 72,515/- and Rs. 3,14,100/- respectively. The Income tax Officer assessed these amounts to tax for the assessment year 1956-57 Under Section 10(5A) of the Act as compensation earned for parting with the effective power of management. The assessment was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. After some adjournments the appeal was finally fixed for hearing on August 26, 1958. On that date no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor was there any application for an adjournment. On August 28, 1958 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default of appearance. This the Tribunal purported to do Under Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946 as amended by notification dated January 26, 1948. Five weeks after the disposal of the appeal the assessee filed a petition before the Appellate Tribunal prayin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xed for hearing or any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or may hear it ex parte. This Rule was amended by means of a notification dated January 26, 1948 and it took the following shape: Where on the day fixed for hearing or any other day to which, the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the tribunal may dismiss the appeal for default. The Rule contained no provision for restoring an appeal dismissed for default. 3. The Special Bench of the High Court noticed the previous history of Rule 24 as also the terms in which it came to be framed after the passing of the Income tax Act, 1961 which enables the Tribunal, in its discretion, either to dismiss the appeal for default or to hear it ex parte in case of non-appearance of the parties and further enables the Tribunal to set aside the dismissal on sufficient cause being shown for non-appearance. After referring to various decided cases and examining the relevant provisions of the Act, the Special Bench summed u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Income tax U.P., [1952] 22 ITR 104(All) Ruvula Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income tax, Madras, [1955] 27 ITR 164(Mad) and Mangat Ram Kuthiala and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income tax, Punjab [1960] 38 ITR 1(Mad) have also been pressed in support of the appellant's contention. Now Section 5A of the Act appears in Chapter 2A relating to the Appellate Tribunal. Sub-ss. (1) to (4) provide for the Constitution of the Tribunal and the appointment of its President and Members. Sub-sections (5) to (7) provide for the manner in which the benches of the Tribunal have to function. Sub-section (8) is to this effect : Subject to the provisions of this Act the Appellate Tribunal shall have the, power to regulate its own procedure and the procedure of benches of the Tribunal in all matters arising out of the discharge of its functions including the places at which the bench shall hold their sittings. The powers, functions and duties of the Appellate Tribunal are set out in .Sections 28, 33, 35, 37, 48 and 66. For our purpose reference may be made only to Sections 33 and 66. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 33 give a right to the assessee and the Commissioner to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....medies which were open to an aggrieved party could be defeated or rendered infructuous. The fact that there was no provision in Rule 24 or any other Rule for restoring an appeal once it was dismissed for default was also considered weighty in the matter. The cases in which the validity of Rule 24 has been upheld may now be considered. In Shri Bhagwan Radha Kishen v. Commissioner of Income tax, U.P. [1952] 22 ITR 104 (All) the discussion on the question of validity of the rule is somewhat meagre. It was no doubt said that Rule 24 did not in any way come into conflict with Section 33(4) but hardly any reasons were given in respect of that view. It was recognised that there was no specific rule empowering the Tribunal to restore an appeal dismissed for default of appearance but it was observed that the Tribunal would have inherent jurisdiction to set aside such an order if satisfied with regard to the Existence of a sufficient cause. According to Ravula Subba Rao and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income tax, Madras [1955] 27 ITR 164(Mad) a very wide power was given to the Appellate Tribunal by Section 33(4) and it could pass any order which the circumstances of the case required. It was imm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction and has no appellate or revisional powers. The advisory jurisdiction can be exercised on a proper reference being made and that cannot be done unless the Tribunal itself has passed proper order Under Section 33(4). It follows from all this that the Appellate Tribunal is bound to give a proper decision on questions of fact as well as law which can only be done if the appeal is disposed of on the merits and not dismissed owing to the absence of the appellant. It was laid down as far back as the year 1953 by S. R. Das, J. (as he then was) in Commissioner of Income tax, Madras v. Mtt. Ar. S. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar [1953] 23 ITR 180(SC) that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and of the High Court is conditional on there being an order by the Appellate Tribunal which may be said to be one Under Section 33(4) and a question of law arising out of such an order. The Special Bench, in the present case, while examining this aspect quite appositely referred to the observations of Venkatarama Aiyar, J. in Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co,. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589(SC) indicating the necessity of the disposal of the appeal on the merits by the Appellat....