1972 (2) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioner obtained a degree of Bachelor in Commerce from the Commercial University, Delhi - His qualification was not recognised by the respondents for representing the assessee before them. The sales tax authorities also refused permission to the petitioner to represent the assessee before them - present writ petition claiming that he is duly qualified to represent the assessee under section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 51 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 Held that Commercial University Limited, Delhi is not a University incorporated by any law as required by rule 51 of IT Rules, 1962 - therefore, a person holding a degree of that university cannot appear before the income-tax authorities as an authorised representative

Summary

Issues:
Recognition of degree obtained from Commercial University, Delhi for representing assessee before income-tax authorities under section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner obtained a Bachelor in Commerce degree from Commercial University, Delhi, in August 1970, but the authorities did not recognize his qualification for representing the assessee. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of the term "of any Indian University incorporated by any law for the time being in force" in rule 51 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Section 288 of the Income-tax Act allows representation by an authorized representative, defined as a person with prescribed educational qualifications. The Board's rule 51 specifies that these qualifications include a degree from an Indian University incorporated by law, which the Commercial University, Delhi, does not meet as it is a company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, not a university established by legislative enactment.

The petitioner argued that the term "University" should be interpreted broadly, citing the definition in the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. However, rule 51 of the Income-tax Rules specifically requires a degree from an Indian University incorporated by law, which is narrower than the UGC Act's definition. Moreover, the Commercial University, Delhi, was prosecuted by the UGC for unauthorized use of the term "University," leading to convictions upheld by the courts. Consequently, the petitioner's degree does not meet the criteria of rule 51, justifying the authorities' decision to deny him representation before them.

In conclusion, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it without costs. Additionally, a related application was also dismissed. The judgment clarifies that the petitioner's degree from Commercial University, Delhi, does not fulfill the requirements of rule 51 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, warranting the authorities' refusal to allow him to represent the assessee before income-tax authorities.