1967 (3) TMI 35 - HC - Income Tax

Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act - Appeal To Tribunal - Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine taking the view that the appeal which was not maintainable before the Commissioner did not become maintainable by reason of the amendment nor could the Tribunal treat the same as an appeal filed before it - held taht order of Tribunal was liable to be set aside

Summary

Issues: Appeal competency under Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, interpretation of amended provisions, jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal, petitioner's right to appeal, Tribunal's discretion in treating appeals as revision petitions, correctness of Tribunal's orders.

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Mysore involved a case where the petitioner's father had appealed against an assessment order under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act. Following the father's demise, the petitioner continued the appeal process. Initially, a note was made by an official at the Commissioner's office stating the appeal was incompetent as it did not enhance tax liability or impose a penalty, as required under the Act. However, before the Commissioner could address the appeal, the Act was amended, giving the right of appeal to an Appellate Tribunal instead of the Commissioner. The amendment did not include the previous conditions for appeal, such as enhancement of tax or penalty imposition.

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating it was not maintainable before the Commissioner and did not become maintainable post-amendment. The petitioner then approached the High Court with a writ petition, which was withdrawn to exhaust other remedies, including requesting the Tribunal to rectify or review its order. Upon the Tribunal's dismissal of the reconsideration application, the petitioner filed a writ petition again. The High Court found the Tribunal's initial view unsustainable, emphasizing that transferred matters should be dealt with by the Tribunal as appeals under the amended section 34, requiring consideration on merits.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's orders and directed it to take up the appeal for consideration on its merits, emphasizing that once transferred, the Tribunal must treat the matters as appeals under the amended section 34. The Court highlighted that the question of maintainability ceased to be relevant upon transfer to the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court noted that even if the appeal was initially not maintainable, the Commissioner could have treated it as a revision petition, and upon transfer to the Tribunal, it must be treated as an appeal under the amended provisions. The judgment concluded by directing the Tribunal to proceed with the appeal on merits without awarding any costs.