Madras High Court
T. Raghavan, Advocate, Executor And ... vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench ... on 13 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)191CTR(MAD)179, 2003ECR1048(MADRAS), 2003(158)ELT569(MAD), [2003]262ITR257(MAD), 2004 TAX. L. R. 923, (2004) 15 ALLINDCAS 396 (MPG), 2004 TAX. L. R. 922, (2004) 138 TAXMAN 265, (2003) 111 ECR 1048, (2003) 177 TAXATION 346, (2004) 191 CURTAXREP 179, (2004) 269 ITR 190, (2004) 1 MPHT 282, (2004) 1 MPLJ 383, (2004) 181 TAXATION 707, (2004) 136 TAXMAN 637, (2004) 191 CURTAXREP 156
Author: P.K. Misra
Bench: P.K. Misra
ORDER P.K. Misra, J.
1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.2.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'C' (first respondent) in ITA Nos. 562 & 563/Mds/1978-79.
3. It is unnecessary to notice the chequered history of this case. In Tax Case Nos. 587 & 588 of 1984, some questions were referred to the High Court at the instance of the Revenue and were answered by the High Court in Judgment dated 24.6.2002. Thereafter under the impugned order, the first respondent has passed the order allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue and dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is to the effect that before dealing with the appeals, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal should have given opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. It is contended that under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, before deciding the appeal, it is necessary that opportunity of hearing should be given and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed illegality in not giving such opportunity to the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the Department, however, contended that under Section 260, the opinion expressed by the High Court in the Reference is communicated to the Tribunal, which is required to dispose of the appeals in accordance with the opinion, and therefore, it is not necessary to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 254(1) of the Act.
6. The relevant provisions contained in Sections 254 and 260 are extracted hereunder:-
254. (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.
(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer . . .
(3) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of any orders passed under this section to the assessee and to the Commissioner.
(4) Save as provided in section 256 or section 260A, orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final.
260. (1) The High Court or the Supreme Court upon hearing any such case shall decide the questions of law raised therein, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and a copy of the judgment shall be sent under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal which shall pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.
(1A) . . .
(2) . . .
7. It is true that once a question of law is answered by the High Court in a particular manner, in a reference, the Tribunal is required to dispose of the appeal in conformity with the opinion expressed by the High Court. This, however, does not take away the effect of Section 254, which specifically provides for giving opportunity of hearing to the parties in appeal. The effect of a decision in a reference to the High Court is contained in Section 260, but, the procedure required to be followed in disposal of the appeal is not given a go-bye.
8. In (1970) 75 I.T.R. 196 (COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, WEST BENGAL II v. TUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LIMITED) while dealing with the question relating to disposal of the appeal, the Supreme Court has observed as follows :-
" . . . But it is necessary to give certain effective directions in this case. Section 27(6) of the Act requires the Tribunal, on receiving a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court or the High Court as the case may be, to pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to such judgment. This clearly imposes an obligation upon the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in the light and conformably with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Before the Tribunal passes an order disposing of the appeal there would normally be a hearing. The scope of the hearing must of course depend upon the nature of the order passed by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees with the view of the Tribunal the appeal may be disposed of by a formal order. But if the Supreme Court disagrees with the Tribunal on a question of law, the Tribunal must modify its order in the light of the order of the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court has held that the judgment of the Tribunal is vitiated because it is based on no evidence or because the judgment proceeds upon a misconstruction of the statute, the Tribunal would be under a duty to dispose of the case conformably with the opinion of the Supreme Court and on the merits of the dispute and re-hear the appeal. In all cases, however, opportunity must be afforded to the parties of being heard.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.2.2003 is quashed. The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal is required to dispose of the appeals afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Since the matters are very old, it is necessary that the appeals should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. Consequently, WPMP. Nos. 9404 & 9405 of 2003 are closed.