2014 (2) TMI 1240 - HC - Income Tax

Direction to constitute the Bench - Held that - Without going into merits of the matter at the request of learned advocate for the petitioner and petitioner himself this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter with a direction to respondent no. 1 & 2 to re-constitute the Special Bench for deciding the Reference aforesaid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Meaning thereby the entire exercise of reconstituting Special Bench and hearing of the Reference and disposing of the same shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Shri Shah the petitioner in view of above directions does not press this petition.

Summary

Issues:
1. Constitution of a Special Bench to decide on the debarment of a former member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Delay in pronouncement of decision by the Special Bench.
3. Request for reconstitution of the Special Bench and a direction for a fresh decision within a stipulated period.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a question regarding the debarment of a former member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Shri Deepak R. Shah, from practicing before the Tribunal due to the insertion of Rule 13 E in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963. A Special Bench was constituted to decide this question, but the decision was not pronounced even after the hearing was completed on 20/1/2012.

2. The petitioner requested the Court for a direction to reconstitute the Special Bench as one member had retired, and to decide the reference afresh within three months. The respondent did not object to this request. The Court, without delving into the merits of the matter, disposed of the case by directing respondent nos. 1 & 2 to reconstitute the Special Bench and decide the reference within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

3. The Court clarified that the reconstitution of the Special Bench, the hearing of the reference, and the final decision should be completed within the stipulated three-month period. The petitioner, in light of this direction, did not press the petition further. The Court emphasized that it had not entered into the merits of the matter, keeping all contentions of the parties open, and discharged the rule without imposing any costs on either party.