COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS Vs. S CHENNIAPPA MUDALIAR MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Special Bench of the Madras High Court in which the sole question that has to be determined is whether Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946, insofar as it enables the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default of appearance was ultra vires the provisions of Section 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the "Act".

(2.) The facts which gave rise to the reference which was made to the High Court by the Appellate Tribunal lie within a narrow compass. The assessee owned 1674 shares in Asher Textiles Ltd. and 9 out of 20 shares in Textile Corporation (Private) Ltd., at Tiruppur. The latter company was the managing agent of the Asher Textiles Ltd. The assessee was a Joint Managing Director of the Textile Corporation (Private) Ltd. along with one P. D. Asher. The assessee sold on December 21, 1954 his entire holding in two companies to Asher and some of his relations. These sales resulted in a profit of Rs. 72,515/- and Rs. 3,14,100/- respectively. The Income-tax Officer assessed these amounts, to tax for the assessment year 1956-57 under Section 10 (5A) of the Act as compensation earned for parting with the effective power of management. The assessment was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. After some adjournments the appeal was finally fixed for hearing on August 26, 1958. On that date no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor was there any application for an adjournment. On August 28, 1958 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default of appearance. This the Tribunal purported to do under R. 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules 1946 as amended by notification dated January 26, 1948. Five weeks after the disposal of the appeal the assessee filed a petition before the Appellate Tribunal praying for its restoration. It was state, inter alia, in that petition that it was owing to some misapprehension on the part of the assessee's auditors at Coimbatore that the date of the hearing of the appeal was not intimated to the counsel at Madras who was convalescing there after a surgical operation. The Tribunal did not consider that there was sufficient cause for restoration and rejected the petition. The assessee applied for a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Act on two questions of law but that application was rejected by the Tribunal. The assessee approached the High Court under Section 66 (2) of the Act and on April 5, 1960 the High Court directed the Tribunal to state the case on two questions. The matter was first heard by a Division Bench but owing to the validity of Rule 24 having been canvassed a Special Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and two Judges was constituted. The Special Bench reframed the first question thus:

(3.) The Special Bench of the High Court noticed the previous history of Rule 24 as also the terms in which it came to be framed after the passing of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which enables the Tribunal, on its discretion, either to dismiss the appeal for default or to hear it ex parte in case of non-appearance of the parties and further enables the Tribunal to set aside the dismissal on sufficient cause being shown for non-appearance. After referring to various decided cases and examining the relevant provisions of the Act, the Special Bench summed up the position thus: