SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(Mad) 38

SATYANARAYANA RAO, RAJAGOPALAN
Ravula Subba Rao – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Bhimasankaram for Petitioners.
C.S. Rama Rao Sahib for Respondents.

Satyanarayana Rao, J.-These are applications to issue writs of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. By virtue of the rule-making power vested in the Appellate Tribunal under section 5-A, sub-clause 8, rule 24 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946, was made, and it provides:

“Where on the day fixed for hearing or any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned) the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or may hear it ex parte.”

The point raised in these petitions is that this rule is ultra vires and is opposed to section 33 (4) of the Income-tax Act. The rule-making power under section 5-A, sub-clause (8), is, of course, subject to the provisions of the Act, and the scope of the power is to regulate the procedure of the Appellate Tribunal and the procedure of Benches of the Tribunal in all matters arising out of the discharge of its functions, including the places at which the Benches shall hold their sittings. It is essentially a power to regulate the Tribunal’s own procedure, but is subject to the provisions of the Act.

The point






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top