9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in reference applications. 2. Maintainability of writ petitions to quash the Tribunal's order. 3. Consideration of applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. 4. Authority of the senior representative to sign on behalf of the Commissioner. 5. Applicability of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. Analysis: The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in reference applications. The Tribunal had dismissed the applications, stating that the Commissioner needed to sign the application for a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, emphasizing that the senior representative signing on behalf of the Commissioner is valid as long as there is authorization for such representation. The court referred to a previous decision to support this stance, highlighting that the Tribunal erred in deeming the applications not maintainable due to the absence of the Commissioner's signature. Moreover, the judgment addresses the issue of the writ petitions' maintainability to challenge the Tribunal's order. The court clarified that under article 226 of the Constitution, writ petitions are permissible if there is no other alternative remedy available. In this case, since the Tribunal's decision was considered a grievous mistake, the High Court had the jurisdiction to intervene through writ jurisdiction. The court rejected the argument that the Tribunal's order was not quasi-judicial, asserting that decisions made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act qualify as quasi-judicial. Additionally, the court emphasized that the scope of article 226 extends beyond quasi-judicial matters, allowing for interference in administrative and public interest cases without limitations. Furthermore, the judgment underscores the importance of considering applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. It highlights that the Commissioner's involvement in initiating the reference process is crucial, even if the application is signed by a senior representative. The court emphasized that the Commissioner's authorization of the representative's signature implies ownership of the application and the decision to seek reference to the High Court. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the Tribunal's orders, and directed the Tribunal to review the applications on merit. The court also dismissed the tax case petitions as premature, as they could only be filed if the Tribunal refused to refer the questions raised. The petitioner was awarded costs for the writ petitions, including counsel fees.
|
