The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 3834 (Del-HC) : (2019) 265 TAXMAN 0311

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Rule 4A

Rule 4A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 empowers Selection Board to evolve its own procedure. The aforesaid Rules are not subject-matter of challenge before the Court. The decision of Committee to short-list the candidates is reasonable and not arbitrary. Therefore, petition of assessee was dismissed.

Selection process for the post of Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Eligibility criteria prescribed under sub-sections (2) and (2A) of section 252 of Income Tax Act - -

Petitioners have challenged the selection process for the post of Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) for recruitment of Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal invoked rule 4A of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 which empowers them to evolve its own procedure for selection of Members. Committee in its meeting dated 1-5-2019 decided to consider only complete applications received by 20-8-2018. Committee further resolved to call for interview 24 most experienced applicants from profession, i.e., practising advocates and others belonging to unreserved category against 9 unreserved posts. Held: Rule 4A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 empowers Selection Board to evolve its own procedure. The aforesaid Rules are not subject-matter of challenge before the Court. The decision of the Committee to short-list the candidates is reasonable and not arbitrary. Reference be made to Madhya Pradesh PSC v. Navnit Kumar Potdar [(1994) 6 SCC 293] in which the Supreme Court upheld the action of Public Service Commission to call for interview only 71 applicants out of 188 applicants on the ground that only candidates with 7½ years experience be called for interview, whereas five years experience was the eligibility criteria. Thus, petition filed by assessee was dismissed.

REFERRED : Prakash Chand Meena & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 484, B. Amrutha Lakshmi, Irrinki Srinagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 440 Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra and Another (2008) 10 SCC 139 and K. Manjusree v. State of AP & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. :



IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT