Sabyasachi Mukmarji, J. - (1.) In respect of assessment years 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49 three different orders were passed by the Income-tax Officer. In respect of the said orders, appeals were preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It appears that the said appeals came up for hearing before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the 20th February, 1961, and 17th March, 1961, and the learned advocate on behalf of the assessee appeared before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the said dates and advanced one set of arguments in all the three cases. Thereafter, on the 19th March, 1962, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by an order dealt with and disposed of the contention--and the points involved in the said three appeals relating to the said three assessment orders. It was contended before the Tribunal on further appeal that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no power and authority to do so. The Tribunal was unable to accept the said contention and observed : " If an assessee files a number of cases for different years which come up for hearing on the same date, they are usually heard together and disposed of by a single order with the concurrence of the parties concerned for the sake of convenience."
(2.) The Tribunal also observed that, in those circumstances, the consent of the assessee was to be implied. On an application being made to the Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 1922, the Tribunal referred to this court the following question : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was competent to pass one single order in the three appeals filed before him relating to the assessment years 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49 ?"
(3.) Before us, Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate for the assessee, contended that there is no such power under the Act to pass one consolidated order. According to him, such a composite order would be against the basic concept of the Income-tax Act. He also contended that such a composite order is against the scheme of the Act which provides for yearwise assessment and separate fees for appeal each year. According to him, there is no such power given to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and as such the order that has been passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is void and ultra vires his authority. Mr. Chowdhury also contended that, unlike the civil court, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, being a creature of statute, the limit of his authority and his power must be found within the statute and there is no scope for any inherent power which the civil court might have in some cases.;