Skip to content


Mohan Lal Gumber Vs. Secretary, Board of Direct Taxes and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ No. 17 of 1971 and C.M. No. 1428 of 1971
Judge
Reported in[1973]90ITR410(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Rules, 1962 - Rule 51
AppellantMohan Lal Gumber
RespondentSecretary, Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Appellant Advocate N.L Dhingra, Adv. in C.M. No. 1428 of 1971
Respondent Advocate D.N. Awasthy and; B.S. Gupta, Advs. for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and;
Excerpt:
.....the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of..........incorporated by any law as, according to me, the university which is contemplated by this rule is a university concerning which an act has been passed incorporating it so that the legislature applies its mind as to the various functionaries of the university and the standard of education to be imparted by it. the commercial university ltd., delhi, does not conform to that description. 4. the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the word ' university ' has not been defined in any act except the university grants commission act, 1956, section 2(f) of which defines 'university ' to mean : ' a university established or incorporated by or under a central act, a provincial act or a state act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the.....
Judgment:

Bal Raj Tuli, J.

1. The petitioner obtained a degree of Bachelor in Commerce from the Commercial University, Delhi, in August, 1970. The certificate produced with the writ petition shows that he was awarded a provisional degree. His qualification was not recognised by the respondents for representing the assessee before them. The sales tax authorities also refused permission to the petitioner to represent the assessee before them. He has, therefore, filed the present writ petition claiming that he is duly qualified to represent the assessee under Section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 51 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 justifying the order prohibiting the petitioner from representing the assessee before the income-tax authorities.

2. The decision of this case depends on the interpretation to be placed on the words ' of any Indian University incorporated by any law for the time being in force ' occurring in Rule 51 ibid. Section 288 of the Income-tax Act provides that an assessee can be allowed to be represented by an authorized representative. An authorized representative is defined in subsection (2) of Section 288 as under :

' For the purposes of this section, ' authorized representative' means a person authorized by the assessee in writing to appear on his behalf, being ......

(vi) any person who has acquired such educational qualifications as the Board may prescribe for this purpose.'

3. Educational qualifications have been prescribed by the Board in Rule 51 --one of them being a degree in commerce or law conferred by any of the Indian Universities incorporated by any law for the time being in force. The Commercial University Ltd., Delhi, is not incorporated by any law passed by any legislature, State or Central. It is incorporated as a company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It cannot, therefore, be said to be an Indian University incorporated by any law as, according to me, the University which is contemplated by this rule is a University concerning which an Act has been passed incorporating it so that the legislature applies its mind as to the various functionaries of the University and the standard of education to be imparted by it. The Commercial University Ltd., Delhi, does not conform to that description.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the word ' University ' has not been defined in any Act except the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Section 2(f) of which defines 'University ' to mean :

' A University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act.'

5. In spite of the above definition having been stated in the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Rule 51 of the Income-tax Rules, which were framed in 1962, confines itself to a University incorported by any law for the time being in force and not any University established under a Central Act or Provincial Act or a State Act. For this reason, the scope of a University in Rule 51 is narrower than the scope of a University in the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It is also not the cast of the petitioner that the Commercial University Ltd., Delhi, has been recognized by the University Grants Commission. On the other hand, it is pleaded on behalf of the respondents that University and its directors wereprosecuted by the University Grants Commission for having used the word ' University ' unauthorizedly. That University and its directors were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Delhi, and their conviction was upheld by the High Court. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the degree stated to have been obtained by the petitioner from the Commercial University Ltd., Delhi, is not in conformity with Rule 51 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and, therefore, the decision of the income-tax authorities and the sales tax authorities in not permitting him to appear before them as authorised representative of the assessee is perfectly correct.

6. For the reasons given above, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant does not press Civil Miscellaneous Application no. 1428 of 1971, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //