1997 (5) TMI 94 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Fixation of early hearing of appeals under I.T.A.T. Rule 4A(2)(xiv)
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal Bench to hear preliminary objections regarding early hearing
3. Validity and application of Rule 4A(2)(xiv)
4. Justification for early hearing in the specific case

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Fixation of Early Hearing of Appeals under I.T.A.T. Rule 4A(2)(xiv):
The primary issue revolves around whether the early hearing of appeals, as directed by the administrative authorities of the Tribunal, was appropriate. The Tribunal, after reviewing the relevant materials and petitions filed by the assessees, concluded that the early hearing was justified. The Vice-President had directed early hearing after the assessee provided evidence of departmental pressure and health issues. The Tribunal emphasized that the fixation of early hearing was not arbitrary but based on substantial evidence provided by the assessees, including the Tax Recovery Officer's order and summons under Rule 83 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Rules.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal Bench to Hear Preliminary Objections Regarding Early Hearing:
The Tribunal noted that the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue regarding the early hearing was not a matter for the Bench to decide. The Tribunal's role was to hear the appeals as scheduled and not to question the administrative decision of early hearing. The Tribunal highlighted that Rule 4A(2)(xiv) empowers the Registrar, under the direction of the President, Senior Vice-President, Vice-President, or Senior Member, to fix cases out of turn. This power is administrative and not subject to judicial scrutiny by the Bench hearing the appeals.

3. Validity and Application of Rule 4A(2)(xiv):
The Tribunal addressed the validity of Rule 4A(2)(xiv), which grants discretionary power to administrative authorities to fix cases for early hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged that this rule is binding and cannot be questioned by any Bench or party. The Tribunal emphasized that the rule was designed to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases, reflecting the Tribunal's commitment to "Quick Justice." The Tribunal also noted that the rule does not require a judicial order for early hearing, thus distinguishing the Tribunal's procedures from those of traditional courts.

4. Justification for Early Hearing in the Specific Case:
The Tribunal found that the early hearing was justified based on the evidence provided by the assessees, including the pressure from the Department for tax payment and health issues. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's objection, stating that the fixation of early hearing was in accordance with the established rules and procedures. The Tribunal also noted that the early hearing was ordered after due consideration of the petitions and supporting documents filed by the assessees.

Separate Judgment by Kalsian, A.M.:
Kalsian, A.M., while agreeing with the conclusion of the main judgment, added that the Bench has the jurisdiction to hear preliminary objections regarding early hearing. He argued that discretionary powers under Rule 4A(2)(xiv) must be exercised with established norms and standards to prevent arbitrary decisions. He emphasized the importance of the Rule of Law and the need for administrative actions to be reasonable and in public interest. Kalsian, A.M. also highlighted that the absence of clear norms for early hearing could lead to arbitrary exercise of power, which is against the principles of justice and equality enshrined in the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal overruled the preliminary objection of the Revenue and upheld the early hearing of the appeals. The appeals were adjourned for hearing on May 29, 1997, along with the stay petitions pending for hearing. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of Rule 4A(2)(xiv) and the administrative authority's discretion in fixing early hearings, while Kalsian, A.M. stressed the need for clear norms and standards to guide such discretionary powers.