Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (11) TMI 891

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act'). By the impugned order, the President of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal") has constituted a special bench by making the following endorsement on the order sheet placed before him. "I constitute a special bench consisting of the following members. 1 R.S.Sayad A.M. 2 P.M. Jagtap A.M. 3 M.V. Vasudevan J.M. To hear and decide the entire appeal. Sd/-5.3.13". 4. The bare facts necessary for consideration at this stage are as follows:- The petitioner had filed its Return of Income for the assessment year 2008-2009 declaring a loss of Rs. 19.91 crores. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act determining the petitioner's income at Rs. 272.65 crores. Being aggrieved, the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 15th November 2012, I am of the view that you need to go through the file along with Shri. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member and report to me as to whether it a fit case for constituting a Special Bench. After examining the file, if both of you are of the view that it requires hearing on this preliminary issue, the same may be posted on any convenient date and then the views of the Bench may be forwarded to the Hon'ble president to enable him to consider as to whether it is a fit case for constituting Special Bench in exercise of the powers vested under section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may be treated as urgent." Consequent to the above communication, the Division Bench of Tribunal, siezed of the petitioner's appeal, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the appeal deserves to be referred to a Special Bench. Thereafter on 27th February 2013, the Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal put up an order sheet before the President along with all papers including the original appeal file relevant for the purpose of constitution of Special Bench under Section 255(3) of the Act. The President on the above basis made the endorsement reproduced herein above and constituted a Special Bench to hear the petitioner's appeal at Hyderabad by members who were not stationed in Hyderabad. This was in terms contrary to the suggestion in the order dated 19 December 2012, of the Division Bench at Hyderabad. 7. Prima facie looking at the manner in which the entire proceeding has been conducted for the purpose .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cted and/or taken as a given that the President of quasi judicial body such as the Tribunal would act with fairness. In fact, fairness is the stock in trade of authorities deciding disputes between the parties. We also find this practice of the President entertaining and acting upon letters of CBDT and the Vice President entertaining the Counsel ( likely to appear for Revenue) exparte in respect of an appeal already siezed of by a Division Bench of the Tribunal to be wanting in propriety. This application could well have been made to the Division Bench which could then make a reference to the President for constitution of the Special Bench. In any case, even if the CBDT, who is a party to the proceedings were to approach the Vice President .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ivil consequences/prejudice to the parties. This is more particularly so in view of the Division Bench being siezed of the appeal and the contest between the parties with regard to the constitution of the Special Bench. The President in these facts is prima facie obliged to give some reasons indicating why he is constituting the Special Bench of Tribunal. The respondents submit that the Division Bench of the Tribunal had heard the petitioner but what they failed to notice is that decision is taken by the President of the Tribunal who has considered/heard only one side i.e. the letter dated 15 November 2012 of CBDT. Moreover, the Division Bench who considered/heard both sides does not decide the issue. It is axiomatic in law that one who hea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates