Appointment delayed for lack of I-T returns, SC relief for ITAT members

The Supreme Court has allowed a member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to continue in the post till the age of 62 years as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Last week, a bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said: "The clear position on the facts of this case is that the right of the applicant to appointment had been crystallised even before the 2017 Rules. Therefore, the appointment of the applicant would be governed by the position as it existed prior to the 2017 Rules. In other words, her tenure shall be extended until she attains the age of 62 years."

On April 17, 2013, the Centre issued a circular to fill up 48 vacant posts of members of the ITAT and the applicant applied in the unreserved category.

Interviews were held, following which a panel of names was prepared for appointment on May 31 2014. Since the applicant was not included in the panel, she moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal rejected her application on November 9, 2016 and then she moved the Calcutta High Court.

In 2017, the high court had said: "It is made clear that the petitioner's candidature should not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner's income tax return for the assessment year 2010-2011 is not available as reported by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Till such decision of ACC is communicated to the petitioner and for a week, thereafter one post of Judicial Member under unreserved category shall be kept vacant."

Following the high court judgment, a letter of offer was issued to the applicant on December 24, 2017 followed by a letter of appointment dated March 9, 2018.

In the meantime, the Centre had brought in new rules for appointment to tribunals, namely Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules 2017. The letter of appointment was issued to her in terms of the 2017 Rules, fixing her term as three years.

On April 20, 2018, the applicant submitted a representation to the Secretary in the Department of Justice to the effect that her appointment was in pursuance of a vacancy of 2013 which was governed by the parent act namely, the Income Tax Act 1961.

She contended that the tenure of her appointment should operate until the age of 62 and not for a period of three years as stated in the letter of appointment. On July 6, 2018, vacancies were declared under the 2017 Rules.

The apex court in 2019, struck down the 2017 tribunal rules and directed that the appointments should be made as per the provisions of the parent statute.

Later, the apex court in the 2020 Madras Bar Association case, dealt with the subsequent Rules framed by the Centre in 2020 in connection with the tribunal appointments.

The apex court in July 2021, clarified in the Madras Bar Association case that all appointments made before April 4, 2021 would be governed by the parent statutes.

In the order, passed earlier this month, the apex court noted that it is apparent that the only ground which weighed in the rejection of her candidature was found to be untenable by the division bench of the Calcutta High Court.

"Though the appointment letter was issued to the applicant on March 19, 2018 (in pursuance of the letter of offer dated October 24, 2017), the appointment of the applicant was pursuant to the selection process which had been initiated with the circular of April 17, 2013. It is not in dispute that other persons who were selected in pursuance of that process were issued with letters of appointment much before the 2017 Rules came into effect," it noted, while disposing of the interlocutory application.

--IANS

ss/vd