(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Kulwant Singh against the Income-tax Officer, B-ward, Ludhiana, the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Union of India, respondents Nos. 1 to 3, for a suitable writ directing the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioner to act as an authorised representative under Sub-section (2) of Section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter called the Act.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed to officiate as an Income-tax Officer, Class II, in October, 1959, and posted at Ferozepur as Income-tax Officer. Prior to that, he was serving as income-tax inspector at Rohtak. He was transferred to Sangrur and posted as Income-tax Officer in July, 1960. After serving for about three years, he was transferred and posted as Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in the estate duty circle on 8th May, 1963. He took over charge of the estate duty circle at Patiala some time in June, 1963. He held additional charge of Income-tax Officer Patiala, from 13th July, 1964, to 9th April, 1965. Since 9th April, 1965, the petitioner continued to serve as Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and did not have the charge of any income-tax ward. He had nothing to do with the execution or administration of the Act and was not an income-tax authority within the meaning of Sections 116 and 288 (3) of the Act. On the contrary, he was an estate duty authority, being Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. On 20th March, 1968, he voluntarily submitted his resignation from his employment as Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and the same was accepted, with the result that he was relieved on 16th April, 1968. The petitioner was a law graduate and was entitled to represent the income-tax assessees under Section 288 (2) of the Act as an authorised representative. On 17th August, 1968, he filed a power of attorney before Shri B. D. Seth, Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Ludhiana, for representing one Baldev Sahai, proprietor of Messrs. Dewan Chand Baldev Sahai, Ludhiana, who was an income-tax assessee. The petitioner was, however, told by Shri B. D. Seth that under Section 288 (3) of the Act, he was not entitled to act as an authorised representative for a period of two years from the date of his resignation. The petitioner explained to Shri B. D. Seth that Section 288 (3) did not apply to him, inasmuch as he was employed as Assistant Controller of Estate Duty at the time of his resignation and was not an income-tax authority. Shri B. D. Seth did not permit the petitioner to represent the said assessee. He, however, promised to inform the petitioner in writing within a week after seeking instructions from respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The needful was not done, though a period of over six weeks had elapsed. That led to the filing of the present writ petition in October, 1968.
(3.) IN the return filed by the respondents, it was admitted that the petitioner was appointed to officiate as Income-tax Officer, Class II, vide orders dated 6th October, 1959, passed by respondent No. 2. It was further admitted that the petitioner, since 9th April, 1965, was working as Assistant Controller of Estate Duty at Patiala and, with effect from that date, he was not entrusted with the duties under the Act. It was incorrect to say that he was not an income-tax authority within the meaning of Sections 116 and 288 (3) of the Act. The petitioner had all the time been officiating as Income-tax Officer, Class II, and was working as Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. In the notification dated 31st October, 1966, the Central Board of Direct Taxes had directed that every Income-tax Officer appointed to be an Assistant Controller and posted to the Estate Duty-cum-Income-tax Circle, Patiala, would perform his functions as Assistant Controller in the said Circle. The petitioner was holding the post of an Income-tax Officer, Class II, officiating and was appointed to work as Assistant Controller in Estate Duty-cum-Income-tax Circle, Patiala. He had been appointed as Income-tax Officer under the Act and even after having been relieved of the duties under the Act, in order to enable him to discharge his duties under the Estate Duty Act properly, he remained an income-tax authority within the meaning of Sections 116 and 288 (3) of the Act. Ever since the enactment of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, there had been a close connection between the income-tax establishments and the estate duty establishments. In the very first notification dated 15th October, 1953, the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 (2) of the Estate Duty Act, appointed every Commissioner of Income-tax, every Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and every Income-tax Officer for the time being functioning as such, to be respectively a Controller of Estate Duty, a Deputy Controller of Estate Duty and an Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. Since then, the jurisdiction of the particular Assistant Controller of Estate Duty-cum-Income-tax Officer had been fixed from time to time in accordance with the exigencies of administration of those laws. ' Under the latest notification the jurisdiction of the petitioner was fixed as such Assistant Controller of Estate Duty-cum-Income-tax Circle, Patiala. The petitioner submitted his. resignation on 20th March, 1968, and the same was accepted by respondent No. 2 on 16th April, 1968. He was working as Income-tax Officer, Class II-cum-Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Patiala, and his resignation was. accepted by respondent No. 2 as he was the appointing authority of Income-tax Officers, Class II. It was admitted that the petitioner was a law graduate. His right to represent income-tax assessees was, however, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 288 (3) of the Act. The legislature in its wisdom had thought it fit to impose the restriction on the right of persons falling in the category of the petitioner, an ex-income-tax authority, to represent any assessee in the proceedings before any income-tax authority under the Act. There was nothing illegal or unjust about it.