2003 (8) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

Ex-parte order - notice of hearing could not reach - petitioners themselves by mistake while giving their office address in Form No. 36, have given it as Raheja Centre instead of Raheja Chambers - wrong address of assessee given by a typographical error - The mistake of a typist cannot be attributed to the petitioners. The mistake was not a deliberate one. The petitioners were not to be benefited from the mistake in question. It was nothing but a bona fide mistake Thus tribunal was not justified in deciding ex parte

Summary

Issues:
1. Setting aside an ex parte order due to a typographical error in the address provided.
2. Interpretation of Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
3. Application of principles of "sufficient cause" in setting aside ex parte orders.
4. Judicial discretion in granting a fresh opportunity of hearing based on the circumstances.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners made a typographical error in providing their office address in Form No. 36, leading to non-receipt of a hearing notice from the Tribunal. The Tribunal heard the appeal ex parte and dismissed it. The petitioners, upon learning of the adverse order, filed a miscellaneous application seeking to set aside the ex parte order based on the typographical error.

2. The Tribunal, however, refused to set aside the ex parte order, citing that the mistake was not apparent on the face of the record under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. The petitioners argued that Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules allows setting aside ex parte orders if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown. The court noted the similarity of this rule with Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.

3. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting "sufficient cause" liberally to advance the cause of justice. It held that the typographical error in the address was a bona fide mistake and not deliberate misconduct. The petitioners' genuine intent to appear for the hearing, coupled with the typist's error, constituted sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order.

4. Relying on past interpretations of similar legal provisions, the court found that the petitioners had demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the ex parte order and granting a fresh opportunity for a rehearing. The court exercised judicial discretion in quashing the Tribunal's order, setting aside the ex parte order, and remitting the appeal back to the Tribunal for rehearing on its merits.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and restored the appeal for rehearing, subject to the payment of costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering genuine mistakes and sufficient cause in setting aside ex parte orders to uphold principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings.