The assessment was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commis sioner.
Five weeks after the disposal of the appeal the assessee filed a petition before the Appellate Tribunal praying for its restoration.
On that date numberone was present on behalf of the assessee number was there any application for an adjournment.
Gopalkrishnan and R. Balasubramaniam, for the respondent.
It was stated, inter alia, in that petition 11 Sup CI/69 3 that it was owing to some misapprehension on the part of the assessees auditors at Coimbatore that the date of the hearing of the appeal was number intimated to the companynsel at Madras who was companyvalescing there after a surgical operation.
Appeal from the judgment and Order dated April 30, 1964 of the Madras High Court in T.C. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. 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 s. 33 of the Income tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the Act.
On August 28, 1958 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default of appearance.
The assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal.
After some adjournments the appeal was finally fixed for hearing on August 26, 1958.
74 of 1961 .
The facts which gave rise to the reference which was made to the High Court by the Appellate Tribunal lie within a narrow companypass.
The Income tax Officer assessed these amounts to tax for the assesment year 1956 57 under s. 10 5A of the Act as companypensation earned for parting with the effective power of management.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The latter companypany was the managing agents 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 owned 1674 shares in Asher Textiles Ltd. and 9 out of 20 shares in Textile Corporation Private Ltd. at Tiruppur.
These sales resulted in a profit of Rs.
Narsaraju, R. H. Dhebar, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the appellant.
The assessee sold on December 21, 1954 his entire holding in two companypanies to Asher and some of his relations.
72,515/ and Rs.
The matter was first heard by a division bench but owing to the validity of Rule 24 having been canvassed a special bench companysisting of the Chief Justice and two judges was companystituted.
1015 1968.
3,14,100/ respectively.
The assessee approached the High Court under S. 66 2 of the Act and on April 5, 1960 the High Court directed the Tribunal to state the case on two questions.
194 of 1961 Reference No.
The assessee applied for a reference under S. 66 1 of the Act on two questions of law but that application was rejected by the Tribunal.
This the Tribunal purported to do under Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946 as amended by numberification dated January.26, 1948.
