2005 (9) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as been shown in the cause list. Since to-day's date was fixed as agreed between counsel for the parties we are not inclined to adjourn the case. The first respondent was working as Senior Vice-President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the "Income-tax Appellate Tribunal") from October 18, 2000, till the date of his transfer order to Bangalore dated January 7, 2005. It is the aforesaid transfer order dated January 7, 2005, which was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The first respondent has thus completed more than four years at Chennai. It is well settled that transfer is an exigency of service. Moreover section 252(5) of the Income-tax Act (in short "the Act") states:- "The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shall sit in which place and at which Bench. The constitution of Benches, place of sitting, etc., is hence all a matter for the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to decide, and no Senior Vice-President, Vice-President or Member can insist that he will sit in any particular city or Bench. Neither the Income-tax Act nor the Rules mention any specific place of functioning of the Senior Vice-President. As mentioned in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, different Senior Vice-Presidents have been functioning at various places. Section 255(1) of the Act states:- "The powers and functions of the Appellate Tribunal may be exercised and discharged by the Benches constituted by the President of the Appellate Tribunal from among the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... today he has almost completed five years in Chennai, and hence has no justification to continue any further. It is also stated in paragraph 24 of the writ petition that the first respondent had gone on leave for the last six months and had not attended to his duties at Bangalore even though more than 12,000 cases are pending there. In the impugned order dated June 30, 2005, the Central Administrative Tribunal has observed that the headquarters of the Senior Vice-President is declared to be at New Delhi by some Government Order. It has also observed that the status of the Senior Vice-President is the same as the President. In our opinion, no Government Order can override the statute or statutory rule. The Income-tax Act as well as ....