9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 991 - HC - Income TaxMaintainability of appeal - Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution by ITAT - Held that - In the instant case as could be noted from the order impugned that the Tribunal has chosen to dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution. It also noted that RPAD was sent and the same had returned with the remark of the postal department as none having claimed the same. Instead of deciding the matter on merits it chose to dismiss the same for want of prosecution and this order in our opinion is contrary to the provision of law. When the Supreme Court decided the case of S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court) no amendment in Rule in the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules was made as yet. Rule 24 of the Income Tax Rules 1963 makes it abundantly clear that the Tribunal cannot dismiss the appeal without adverting to the merits. Even on the day on which the hearing is adjourned the appellant chose not to appear in person or through an authorised representative. It is incumbent upon the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent and afterwards if the appellant appears and satisfy the Tribunal sufficient cause for its non-appearance on the date of hearing the Tribunal can set aside the ex parte order and restore the appeal. Thus the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal which shall decide the same afresh on merits - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. 2. Competency of the Tribunal to dismiss appeals without deciding on merits in the absence of the appellant. 3. Adequacy of the appellant's efforts in pursuing the appeal. 4. Applicability of Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and relevant case laws. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution: The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution instead of deciding on merits. The appellant cited the case of CIT v. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320, which the Tribunal relied upon to dismiss the appeal summarily. The appellant contended that the Tribunal was required to adjudicate the appeal on merits even in the absence of the appellant, as mandated by Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. 2. Competency of the Tribunal to dismiss appeals without deciding on merits in the absence of the appellant: The appellant argued that the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal without addressing the merits was contrary to the legal provisions. The appellant relied on several decisions, including CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41 (SC) and Rajendra Prasad Borah v. ITAT [2008] 302 ITR 243 (Gauhati), which held that the Tribunal must dispose of appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them solely for non-appearance of the appellant. The court agreed with this view, emphasizing that Rule 24 mandates the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits even if the appellant is absent. 3. Adequacy of the appellant's efforts in pursuing the appeal: The appellant demonstrated continuous efforts to pursue the appeal by providing evidence of multiple communications with the Tribunal. The appellant claimed that the impugned order was not served timely and was only obtained in December 2011, leading to the delayed filing of the appeal. The court acknowledged the appellant's persistent follow-up and found sufficient cause for the delayed appeal filing, indicating that the appellant had not abandoned the cause. 4. Applicability of Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and relevant case laws: The court examined Rule 24, which requires the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits even if the appellant is absent. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, which established that the Tribunal must provide reasons and decide on merits, and the Gauhati High Court's decision in Rajendra Prasad Borah, which reinforced that the Tribunal cannot dismiss appeals for default in the absence of the appellant. The court found that the Tribunal's reliance on the Multiplan India case was misplaced and contrary to the legal requirement of adjudicating on merits. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without addressing the merits. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the requirement of deciding appeals on merits as per Rule 24 and relevant case laws.
|
