2004 (4) TMI 15 - HC - Income Tax

Applications filed by the assessee for recalling the ex parte order was rejected - whether there was sufficient cause made out for non-appearance of learned counsel on the adjourned date of hearing on November 25 1999 to warrant the restoration of the appeal and for disposal of the same on the merits after hearing learned counsel for the assessee - As this question has not been adverted to or dealt with by the Tribunal in its order under appeal the better course would be to remand the matter to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in accordance with law and after affording the respective parties an opportunity of being heard

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting miscellaneous applications for recalling ex parte order for assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.

Analysis:
The appeal was admitted based on two questions raised by the appellant. The first question was regarding the Tribunal's dismissal of appeals ex parte for the mentioned assessment years, denying the appellant an opportunity to be heard. The second question was about the appropriateness of declining to recall the order without considering the Commissioner of Income-tax's reasoning for deleting additions. The appellant did not press the second question and instead sought the rejection of the order rejecting the miscellaneous applications. The High Court noted that the appeals were disposed of on the merits ex parte, as the appellant failed to appear despite an adjournment. The Tribunal rejected the applications based on false statements in the restoration application, overlooking the evidence provided. The Court referred to relevant judgments establishing the Tribunal's power to recall orders in cases of valid reasons for non-appearance. The Court found that the Tribunal did not consider if there was sufficient cause for non-appearance, leading to the decision to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

The High Court highlighted the importance of affording parties an opportunity to be heard and directed the Tribunal to rehear the Miscellaneous Applications within three months. The judgment emphasized the need for proper consideration of evidence and sufficient cause for non-appearance before making decisions on recalling orders. The Court's decision to remand the matter back to the Tribunal was based on the failure to address the issue of sufficient cause for non-appearance in the original order. The judgment focused on ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in dealing with applications for recalling ex parte orders.