Case Law Details
CASE LAWS DETAILS
DECIDED BY: HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, IN THE CASE OF: S. Venkataramani Vs. CBDT, APPEAL NO: Writ Petition No. 16591 of 2009, DECIDED ON December 2, 2009
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
12. Admittedly, when the same petitioners Mr. Venkataramani and Mr. Sankaran filed Writ Petn. Nos. 10653 and 10654 of 2005 seeking a direction to the original authority namely the C1T-I11 at Kolkata to give a personal hearing before considering the objection made by the 4th and 5th respondent against the deed of variation for amending the Pension Fund Rules, this Court having seen that the petitioners are not only beneficiaries but also affected parties gave a direction to the original authority the CIT-111, at Kolkata to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while passing the final order. The said order dt. 31st March, 2005 was not implemented. Therefore the writ petitioners filed contempt petition in contempt Petn. Nos. 551 and 552 of 2005. During the pendency of the aforesaid contempt petition, the original authority the CIT-III, at Kolkata moved two miscellaneous petitions in writ petition in WPMP Nos. 22044 and 22045 of 2005 seeking extension of time to provide opportunity for personal hearing to the writ petitioners and also to comply with the order of this Court dt. 31st March, 2005 and subsequently, the said order was complied with and whereby the original authority has passed an order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order passed by the original authority by allowing the petitioners to participate in the hearing, an appeal was filed. Since, the appeal is the continuation of original proceedings the appellate authority, who has taken up the appeal filed by the 4th and 5th respondents cannot refuse to grant the same opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to defend the order passed by the original authority at the instance of the petitioners because the appeal is a continuous process of the original application.
13. Secondly, when the third respondent the CIT at Kolkatta has not filed any appeal against the order dt. 31st March, 2005 as well as the against another order dt. 29th July, 2005, it is too late for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to contend that the petitioners are not necessary parties before the appellate authority. In any event, the petitioners have been granted opportunity of personal hearing by the original authority who passed an order on 24th June, 2008 in favour of the petitioners Aggrieved by the said order date 24th June, 2008 the respondents 4 and E .company have filed the appeal before the Chairman of CBDT. Therefore in all fairness, while hearing an appeal from the original authority, the CIT, the CBDT who is the appellate authority cannot deny the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioning assessee at whose instance the impugned order came to be passed and which has become the subject-matter of appeal before the CBDT.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
