9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons from higher authorities he would not be allowed to appear in that case. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging this order. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Department, the stand has been taken that the petitioner was not qualified to appear in estate duty cases, and the impugned order was passed on this consideration. Section 83 of the E. D. Act sets out the persons, who are entitled to appear before the authorities in connection with proceedings under the Act. Five categories of persons are entitled to appear: (1) a relative of the accountable person, (2) a person regularly employed by the accountable person, (3) a legal practitioner, (4) chartered accountants, and (5) any other person having such qualification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of April, 1938 ...... attended before an income-tax authority on behalf of any assessee otherwise than in the capacity of an employee or relative of that assessee; (b) any person who has passed any accountancy examination recognised in this behalf by the Central Board of Revenue; or (c) any person who has acquired such educational qualifications as the Central Board of Revenue may prescribe for this purpose. " The petitioner does not meet the test set out in sub-cls. (a) and (b) of cl. (iv). He has sought to bring his case under sub-cl. (c). Rule 46 of the Rules framed under the 1922 Act sets out the educational qualifications prescribed by the CBR for purposes of sub-cl. (c) of cl. (iv) of sub-s. (2) of s. 61 of the Indian I.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Indian I.T. Act, he would not be entitled to appear before E.D. authorities solely on the footing that he fulfils the requirements of r. 41 (i). It has, however, been contended that the restriction set out in cl. (ii) of r. 41 should not be read into cases covered by cl. (i) of r. 41. We are not inclined to agree with this contention. Both cls. (i) and (ii) relate to income-tax practitioners, and if the purpose of cl. (ii) had been other than restricting the scope and ambit of cl. (i), it would not have found a place in r. 41, for, in case a purpose other than a restrictive purpose is assigned to cl. (ii) of r. 41, it becomes redundant as the field of I.T. practitioners is fully covered by cl. (i) of r. 41. Counsel for the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
