9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1751 - HC - Income TaxPower to constitute special Bench - administrative decisions of the President, ITAT - request for constitution of Special Bench was declined by the President - learned Single Judge directed day to day basis by Bengaluru Bench - HELD THAT - The observations occurring in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT) AND OTHERS 1996 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT ; AJAY GANDHI AND ANOTHER VERSUS B. SINGH AND OTHERS 2004 (1) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT ;PRESIDENT, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VERSUS A. KALYANASUNDARAM AND OTHERS. 2005 (9) TMI 65 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and the principles available therein are neither of any doubt nor of debate. However, we are unable to agree that the learned Single Judge has at all passed any order overriding the powers of the President. In the given set of facts and circumstances, we are unable to take any exception against the impugned order dated 22.02.2018 as passed by the learned Single Judge but, of course, deem it appropriate to observe that the said order cannot be construed to mean that the powers of the President to constitute appropriate Bench for hearing and disposal of the appeals has been dealt with by the Court; and obviously, it goes without saying that the President has the powers to constitute appropriate Bench/Benches for consideration of the appeal/s in accordance with law - appeals stand dismissed
Issues:
1. Challenge to the directions of the learned Single Judge regarding the disposal of appeals by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench. 2. Dispute over the jurisdiction and control of the President of the Tribunal in constituting Benches and the place of sitting. 3. Request for transfer of appeals outside Bengaluru and constitution of a Special Bench. 4. Consideration of the administrative decisions of the President of the Tribunal. 5. Examination of the legality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in relation to the powers of the President. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a private limited company, appealed against the order of a learned Single Judge directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, to hear and dispose of its appeals expeditiously. The appellant challenged these directions, arguing that the matter should not be restricted to the Bengaluru Bench. The High Court found no justification to interfere with the Single Judge's order and clarified that the President of the Tribunal retains the power to constitute appropriate Benches for appeal hearings. 2. The dispute centered on the jurisdiction and control of the President of the Tribunal in constituting Benches and deciding the place of sitting. The appellant sought to transfer its appeals outside Bengaluru and requested a Special Bench, which was declined by the President. The High Court upheld the President's discretion in constituting Benches and emphasized that the Court did not override the President's powers in its order. 3. The appellant's requests for a Special Bench and transfer of appeals were rejected by the President, leading to the matter being listed before a Touring Bench in Bengaluru. The High Court noted the sequence of events, including the rejection of transfer requests and the subsequent extension of time for appeal disposal by the Bengaluru Bench. The Court found the Single Judge's decision to extend the time for disposal justified in the circumstances. 4. The legal counsel for the respondents supported the order of the Single Judge, emphasizing the President's administrative functions in constituting Benches. The Court reviewed various orders issued by the President for the constitution of Touring Benches. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's order, stating that it did not impede the President's authority to form appropriate Benches for appeal hearings. 5. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals while affirming the Single Judge's order. The Court clarified that the President retains the power to constitute suitable Benches for appeal hearings, and the Single Judge's directions did not infringe upon this authority. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of, with no costs awarded.
|
