Riding on the lollipop offered to the Indian legal service which runs the Union law ministry that administratively controls the tribunal, the eligibility condition for the post of accountant member from the income tax department has also been correspondingly lowered. The political message is -- please the administrative ministry and then tinker as you please with well established judicial institutions managing the country's publicrevenue.

Founded in 1941, the ITAT has won consistent commendations from successive Supreme Court judges as a high quality interdisciplinary body of those experienced in judicial work and accountancy. This has been possible by so far having choice from among advocates and chartered accountants who have practised for 10 years at least and thereby seen the field operation of the laws devised by ruling politicians.

The other stream for selection has been of grade I Indian Legal Service officers for the judicial members post on the tribunal and grade A or commissioner of income tax level officers for the accountant members post. The Budget or the Finance Bill now makes grade II officers of the Indian Legal Service and additional commissioners of income tax eligible for the judicial and accountant members posts. The minimum service experience stipulated for the earlier senior level officers from the Indian Legal Service and the income tax department was three years. For the junior level officers now sought tobe made eligible the minimum experience is the same.

All this is done by clause 53 of the Finance Bill 1998, which amends 5.252 of the Income Tax Act.

In the complex commercial world of dressing up facts as accounting figures experience of a sufficiently high order is required to pierce through the dressing. It is this ability of the accountant member on the tribunal that makes him of indispensable help to the judicial member to apply the law to the facts. Such an accountant member from the income tax department was so far held to be available only when he has had the experience of the level of commissioner. After reaching this level he has had an insight both into assessment and judicial work, there being the post of deputy commissioner (appeals).

But now a the Finance Bill proposes to abolish the post of deputy commissioner (appeals). Now all deputy commissioners with a few years of experience will be known as additional commissioners and they are made eligible by the Bill for the post of accountantmember without any appeal work experience as from 1.10.98 all appeals will go to commissioner (appeals).

A judicial institution cannot rise above the quality of its personnel. But the quality of personnel of ITAT is not the government's motive for proposing these changes. The ostensible motive as stated is to provide younger elements in the legal and income tax service an opportunity to be on the tribunal at a younger age.

This could be a signal for departmentalisation of the ITAT by putting lower ranking government officials of the law and finance ministries for long terms as judicial and accountant members. But he serious legal issue it raises is whether a Budget, which the Constitution calls an annual financial statement, can be used to demote a judicial tribunal and provide better service opportunities to government officials.

Now that deputy commissioners (appeals) are to disappear one will have a host of eligible additional commissioners experience largely in assessment work. The ChelliahCommittee report on tax reforms had especially noted the tendency of assessing officers to recommend to the commissioner that almost every case in which the commissioner (appeals) has not sustained the additional demands levied by them, should be referred to the ITAT because they stand to lose nothing if the tribunal rules against such demands.

The committee, noting the widespread corruption in the income tax department and the need for better training and better information organisation, had recommended a black mark for those assessing officers in whose case if 50 percent of the demands are not upheld by the tribunal.

Sinha has nothing to say about all this. Instead his proposal creates a situation wherein an additional commissioner selected for the tribunal would be sitting in judgment over the orders of the commissioner. Surely the Supreme Court's call in L Chandra Kumar's case for drastic measures to elevate the standards of tribunals and the Chelliah report's call for thorough going changes inrecruitment, personnel, promotion and rewards policies did not imply converting the ITAT into a channel for judicially in experienced service officers permanently obliged to their political masters.