9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be pleased to appear before you if you need any further information in the matter." 2. To enable the parties to address me on the aforesaid request, I directed the Registry of the Tribunal to list the aforesaid application in Court and thereafter the parties were heard at length, the ld. counsel for SEDCO supporting his request on facts and in law and his pleas being opposed by the ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee as also the ld. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The submissions of the three parties are as under:-- 3. By SEDCO: 1. That the provisions of section 255(3) and 255(4) did not say anything about intervention and even the Appellate Tribunal Rules did not speak of intervention before a Special Bench but the appearance on behalf of the Intervenors had been permitted all along in the past as and when a matter came up before a Special Bench. According to the ld. counsel, the Tribunal had inherent powers to allow intervention by a party, which was likely to be affected by the outcome of a decision taken in the appeal of another assessee and when admittedly the issue raised in both the appeals was identical. It was emphasized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with one view or the other and would make it only a majority view and not a unanimous one. An intervenor if allowed in a Third Member case would not have the benefit of the views expressed by both the ld. Members constituting the Division Bench since copies of their orders expressing dissenting views were provided only to the parties before the Tribunal. (vi) That an intervenor in d Third Member case could not give a different facet to the issue before a Third Member as distinct from an independent view, which he could express before a Special Bench. (vii) The hearing before a Third Member was not a fresh case of hearing as was the position before a Division Bench or a Special Bench and the mechanism of a Third Member case was entirely different to the procedure adopted by a Special Bench or a Division Bench. (viii) In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld. counsel placed reliance on the Third Member decision of the Amritsar Bench in the case of Export House v. ITO [1985] 13 ITD 687 at 689 (Asr.). 5. By the Department: (a) The ld. DR at the outset contended that the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal was to be in accordance with the provisions of the I.T. Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member spoke for itself and the same being entirely legal did not require any facts to be looked into. (ii) That the term "intervention" meant a hearing to be given to parties who were likely to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings. (iii) There should be an attempt to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and it was with this in mind that intervention was being allowed in a Special Bench case and the intervenors did not have the facts but only the question of law, which was pending decision of the Special Bench. (iv) That the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was an All India body and entrusted with the task of interpreting the I.T. Act and the Third Member was a part of a Division Bench and not a Special Bench and further the intervenor even in a Special Bench case was to argue only on the issue before the said Special Bench and nothing more. The hearing before the Third Member was canvassed to be on an identical footing. (v) That hearing before the Third Member was also de novo and further even in a Special Bench the appeals of the Intervenors were not heard and disposed of but they could get the benefit of the decision as and when delivered in their own respective cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring is primarily with reference to the views expressed by the two Ld. Members constituting the Division Bench and where admittedly there has been a difference of opinion among them and the role of the Third Member is limited to acting as a "referee" as he is precluded in law from expressing a "third opinion" and he has to agree with one view or the other. This "restraint" is not there in the hearings before the Special Bench or the Division Bench where the Tribunal after hearing the parties can express its opinion taking into account the facts of the case as also the legal position thereto. 9. Much was argued before me about the practice of "permitting" Intervenors in Special Bench cases without there being a specific provision in law for doing so and such a practice being evolved with reference to the inherent powers resting with the ITAT of evolving its own procedure for disposing off the appeals presented before it. 10. To deal with this argument, I would once again refer to the nature of proceedings before the Special Bench and the Third Member. In the former "intervention" has been permitted from assessees who are having identical issues before the Tribunal and which nec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring them together but definitely not by allowing intervention in a Third Member case when the legal position is clear that the appeal of the intervenor does not get disposed off even in a Special Bench and he is heard on his entire appeal including the point before the Special Bench or to assume the Third Member. 13. Another argument advanced before me by the learned counsel for "SEDCO" was that the ITAT is an all India Tribunal whose powers and jurisdiction cover the entire country but I would at the outset reject this argument since it is only the Hon'ble Supreme Court which occupies such an exalted position and its decisions are binding on all the Courts and Tribunals of the Country including the Hon'ble High Courts and its decisions are the law of the land. The High Courts in turn lay down the law within their territorial jurisdictions and the different Benches of the ITAT decide the appeals before it following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the jurisdictional High Court and taking into account the decisions of the various other Hon'ble High Courts where there is no decision of the Supreme Court or the jurisdictional High Court on the point at issue. 14. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, which SEDCO did not do and intervention is not a solution to the problem. 18. Another difficulty which would be faced would be that in every Third Member case there would be the initial proceedings to decide whether intervention is to be allowed to an applicant or not and an interim order would have to be passed as is presently being done. All such orders are apparently open to challenge by both the parties. Could we burden the already heavy roaster of the Tribunal with such numerous interim orders when in a Special Bench case intervention is permitted as a matter of routine and the only requirement is that the appeal of the intervenor should be pending in the Tribunal. To go further, today it is a request for intervention in a Third Member case and tomorrow there may be such requests in Division Bench cases. I would like to emphasize that no prejudice is caused to the case of an assessee whose appeal has been decided in dependently without participation as an intervenor in any other case. 19. In the final analysis, I opine that the request for intervention made on behalf of SEDCO and which has been vehemently opposed by both the parties in the present reference under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
