1970 (11) TMI 32 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the order passed by Tribunal dismissing the petitioner s appeal for default of his appearance is without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity or the said order is merely an erroneous or illegal order with jurisdiction

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default of appearance.
2. Validity of the Tribunal's order dated 24th October, 1961.
3. Application of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar.
4. Whether the Tribunal's order was a nullity or merely an erroneous order with jurisdiction.
5. Timeliness of the petitioner's application for rectification.
6. Allegations of laches against the petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to Dismiss an Appeal for Default of Appearance:

The primary issue was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for default of appearance. It was established that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 24th October, 1961, under rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946, as amended in 1948. This rule allowed the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default if the appellant did not appear. However, the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar held that rule 24 was ultra vires and repugnant to section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, which required the Tribunal to dispose of appeals on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal's power to dismiss appeals for default was invalid.

2. Validity of the Tribunal's Order Dated 24th October, 1961:

The Tribunal's order dated 24th October, 1961, was challenged on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction. The court concluded that since rule 24 was declared ultra vires, the Tribunal's order was without jurisdiction and thus a nullity. The court emphasized that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity can be set up even in collateral proceedings.

3. Application of the Supreme Court's Decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar:

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, which declared rule 24 ultra vires. The court accepted this argument, stating that the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal for default was contrary to the mandatory provision in section 33(4) of the Act, which required the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal's order was rendered null and void.

4. Whether the Tribunal's Order was a Nullity or Merely an Erroneous Order with Jurisdiction:

The Tribunal had previously held that its order was not a nullity but an erroneous order with jurisdiction. The court disagreed, stating that the order was passed without jurisdiction due to the invalidity of rule 24. The court cited the Supreme Court's principle that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be cured by consent of parties.

5. Timeliness of the Petitioner's Application for Rectification:

The petitioner's application for rectification was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of being barred by limitation. The court noted that the petitioner could only move for a rehearing after the Supreme Court's decision on 24th February, 1969. The petitioner filed the application on 23rd June, 1969, and approached the court on 18th December, 1969. The court found that the petitioner was not guilty of inordinate delay or laches.

6. Allegations of Laches Against the Petitioner:

The respondents argued that the petitioner was guilty of laches for seeking to quash the Tribunal's order dated 24th October, 1961, after a long delay. The court held that the petitioner could not be denied relief on the ground of laches, as he moved the Tribunal soon after the Supreme Court's decision and approached the court within a reasonable time thereafter.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the Tribunal's order dated 24th October, 1961, was a nullity and set aside both the Tribunal's orders dated 24th October, 1961, and 5th September, 1969. The Tribunal was directed to hear the petitioner's appeal on merits and dispose of it according to law. No order as to costs was made.

← Previous Next →