Rajasthan government promulgates ordinance fixing minimum educational qualifications to be met for contesting elections to local bodies

Ahead of the the local body polls in the state, the Rajasthan government has promulgated an ordinance prescribing minimum educational qualifications to be satisfied to be eligible for contesting the elections to the local bodies in the State.

The ordinance fixing minimum educational qualification, which received the Governor’s assent on Saturday, amends the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

The educational qualification for contesting zilla parishad and panchayat samiti elections is now Class 10, and for contesting for sarpanch, Class 8. The eligibility for contesting Scheduled Caste seats is Class 5.

Panchayat polls for Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch are due to be held in January next year. The dates of the impending local body polls are expected to be announced early next week

Bombay High Court expresses displeasure at the casual manner adopted by ITAT in consideration of appeal; warns the Tribunal against disposing 'matters of vital importance affecting the interest of public in a light hearted or casual manner'

Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court, in Income Tax Appeal No. 1481 of 2012 filed by the State Bank of India, has expressed its displeasure at the ‘light hearted’ and ‘casual’ manner adopted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the consideration and disposal of an application filed by the State Bank of India in an appeal before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal had passed an order merely reviving the said appeal (Income Tax Appeal No.  3145  of  2009) before it  for  hearing  afresh  on merits  in  relation withdrawal of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)  of the IT Act, instead of hearing the appeal on all grounds raised by the appeal in the memo of appeal, including invokability  of section 263 of the IT  Act by the Commissioner.

The effect of the order passed in the Miscellaneous Application in the appeal was that the Tribunal would hear the appeal on merits but not allow arguments on the ground challenging the exercise of powers under Section 263 of the IT Act by the Commissioner to be raised after revival of the Appeal.

The Department contended that the SBI did not seek revival of the Appeal so as to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the IT Act. It was in these circumstances that a limited order was passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the IT Act. 

The Application was filed by the Assessee bringing to the notice of the Tribunal   that   the   ground in respect of withdrawal of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act of Rs.405,17,20,944/-in relation to standard assets was raised in the the Memo of Appeal.

The Tribunal’s attention was invited by the assessee to para 3 of its earlier order dated 06.06.2012 from which the miscellaneous application arose. The Assessee contended that the Tribunal has merely followed its order for the preceding   assessment for the year 2005­-06 and upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, which is the complaint. 

What the Tribunal was called upon to consider was that the Commissioner in assessment year 2005­-06 had not decided the ground on merits but directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment. However for the assessment year 2006-07, the Commissioner of Income Tax had decided the ground on merits. This part of the order, it was contended was vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. 

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of A.A. Sayed and S.C. Dharmadhikari, JJ. held that the Court was not happy in the manner in which the Tribunal has decided the Miscellaneous Application. 

“If the Tribunal was required to devote so much time for assigning reasons in more than five paragraphs in a lengthy eight page order on the Miscellaneous Application so as to correct an obvious mistake by exercising powers under section 254(2) of the IT Act, then, interest of justice would have been sub-served and better had the Tribunal revived the entire Appeal and not partially. If there was a mistake with regard to the claim of deduction, we do not think that the tribunal was justified in directing partial revival of the Appeal…… We do not think that interest of justice and equity is served by non consideration of vital materials by the last fact finding authority, namely the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. That the Tribunal was required to recall its earlier orders and for the reasons which have been assigned by it would indicate that it failed to apply its mind at the initial stage to the grounds raised in the Appeal and in their entirety. It omitted from consideration crucial documentary material as well. In such circumstances, such partial revival of the Appeal would not meet the ends of justice”, the Bench said. 

Accordingly, the Bench modified the order passed on the Miscellaneous Application and directed the Appeal to be heard on its own merits and in accordance with law, permitting the Assessee to raise all grounds raised in the Memo of Appeal.

The Bench also observed thus:

“This direction issued by us in the exercise of our further appellate and inherent powers should serve as a reminder to the Tribunal that the matters of vital importance affecting the interest of public should not be disposed of in a light hearted or casual manner. The record must be perused in its entirety and properly and minutely. That is the function and which the judicial body is required to perform and oblige to carry out as well. In these circumstances and the unsatisfactory and unhappy manner in which the Miscellaneous Application has been dealt with and decided that we have directed the revival of the Appeal.”