| Case ID |
040e1da1-dc08-405e-b0aa-ba3ce0daefa2 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
APPEAL No. 309 OF 1972 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 25, 1973 |
| Hearing Date |
Jun 25, 1973 |
| Decision |
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Income Tax Officer against Murlidhar Sarda. The court held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal possessed inherent jurisdiction under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, allowing it to restore and rehear an appeal disposed of on merits when a party is prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause from appearing before the Tribunal. The appellant failed to demonstrate adequate grounds for the appellant's absence, and the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal stood affirmed. Consequently, the High Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case heard by the Calcutta High Court, APPEAL No. 309 OF 1972, dated June 25, 1973, the Income Tax Officer appealed against the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment of Murlidhar Sarda. The central issue revolved around Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which delineates the powers of the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had previously dismissed the appeal on merits due to the absence of the respondent, who was prevented from attending the hearing due to illness, despite attempting to apply for restoration of the appeal.
The petitioner, represented by lawyers Balai Pal and Ajoy Mitter, contended that the Tribunal lacked inherent jurisdiction to restore the appeal absent express provision. However, the High Court observed that inherent jurisdiction, though not explicitly stated, is ancillary to the statutory powers conferred by Section 254. This inherent jurisdiction ensures that parties are granted a fair opportunity to be heard, a fundamental principle in legal proceedings.
Judge Amaresh Roy and Judge Amiya Kumar Mookarji presided over the case, emphasizing the Tribunal's obligation to consider applications for restoration when reasonable and sufficient cause is demonstrated. The court reasoned that the Tribunal's oversight in not recognizing its jurisdiction to rehear the appeal warranted the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice.
The case also references significant precedents, including CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghose [1971] 82 ITR 888 (SC) and CIT v. K.Y. Pillah & Sons [1967] 63 ITR 411 (SC), which reinforce the Tribunal's authority and the High Court's role in ensuring equitable legal processes. This decision is a pivotal reference for tax law practitioners and emphasizes the importance of procedural adherence in appellate proceedings. It serves as a crucial reminder for tax authorities and litigants alike about the scope of appellate tribunals and the judiciary's supervisory role in maintaining justice and equity in tax assessments. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Income Tax Officer,
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal,
Calcutta High Court
|
| Judges |
Amaresh Roy,
Amiya Kumar Mookarji
|
| Lawyers |
Balai Pal,
Ajoy Mitter,
Bhaskar Gupta
|
| Petitioners |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Respondents |
Murlidhar Sarda
|
| Citations |
1975 SLD 597,
(1975) 99 ITR 485
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghose [1971] 82 ITR 888 (SC),
CIT v. K.Y. Pillah & Sons [1967] 63 ITR 411 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
254
|