{"id":296736,"date":"2023-07-13T18:00:51","date_gmt":"2023-07-13T12:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=296736"},"modified":"2023-07-14T16:29:44","modified_gmt":"2023-07-14T10:59:44","slug":"meghalaya-hc-constitutional-court-tread-with-caution-dealing-with-challenges-order-of-tribunal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/13\/meghalaya-hc-constitutional-court-tread-with-caution-dealing-with-challenges-order-of-tribunal\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitutional Courts to tread with caution while dealing with challenges to Orders of Specialised Tribunals: Meghalaya HC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Meghalaya High Court:<\/b> In the appeals filed against the Judgment and order passed by Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) wherein, the Tribunal found that the law laid down in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Mahari and Sons, 1991 SCC OnLine Gau 85<\/a> (‘Mahari and Sons’) was no longer good, the Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee<\/b>*, C.J. and W. Diengdoh, J., did not express any final opinion on the primary legal issue- that whether the ratio decidendi in the Mahari and Sons (supra) would be applicable in the present matters. The Bench had decided to remand the matter before the Appellate Tribunal and directed the President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to constitute a special Bench for afresh consideration of the matter.<\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

In Mahari and Sons, wherein, all the members of tribal family were engaged in the business. A question was raised before the Gauhati High Court that, whether the exemption granted under Section 10(26)<\/a> of the Income Tax Act, 1961<\/a> (‘the Act’) was restricted to an individual or whether the same could be extended to a group of individuals, particularly if they were family members. The Gauhati High Court had held that when certain individuals who belonged to the same family had set up a business jointly, they would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(26)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal had found that the law laid down in Mahari and Sons was no longer good as subsequent Judgments were passed by the Supreme Court which had discredited the previous principle that a taxing statute had to be interpreted strictly and the benefit of the doubt had to be given to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal had opined that the law as it now stands is that the taxing statute must be interpreted strictly but it no longer holds good that the benefit of any doubt would go to the assessee.The Tribunal had also said that when a juristic entity seeks to claim a benefit of an exemption, it must fall within the class or classes of persons to whom the exemption has been extended and that an exemption clause cannot be charitably interpreted to enlarge the scope to confer benefits on others not specifically intended to be covered by the same.<\/p>\n

In the present appeals, in one of the matters, the husband and wife are the partners of a registered partnership firm and in the other matters the uterine brothers constitute a partnership firm.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/b><\/p>\n