2016 (10) TMI 1133 - AT - Income Tax

Non appearing on the date of hearing - Held that - Considering explanation of the assessee we are satisfied that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the on the date of hearing. The appeal of the assessee has not been decided on merit. Therefore one more chance could be given to the assessee to argue appeal on merits. In this view of the matter we recall our earlier order dated 29.12.2015 and restore the appeal of the assessee. Office is directed to f ix the appeal for hearing on merits on 15.12.2016 for which date no separate notice will be issued.

Summary

Issues: Appeal dismissed for default, non-receipt of notice, sufficient cause for non-appearance, restoration of appeal, next hearing date

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh, delivered by Bhavnesh Saini (Judicial Member), and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), dealt with the issue of an appeal being dismissed for default. The appellant's counsel argued that the assessee did not receive any notice and, therefore, missed the hearing date inadvertently. The Tribunal considered the explanation provided and found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for not appearing on the hearing date. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal had not been decided on merit and decided to grant the assessee another chance to present the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order of dismissal and restored the appeal, directing the office to schedule the next hearing for 15.12.2016 without issuing a separate notice. The Miscellaneous Application was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the Open Court.

This judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that parties receive proper notice of hearings and provides an opportunity for parties to present their case on merits when there is a valid reason for non-appearance. The Tribunal's decision to restore the appeal showcases a fair and just approach to rectifying procedural errors and allowing for a full hearing on the merits of the case. The directive to fix the next hearing without a separate notice emphasizes the need for parties to be diligent in tracking hearing schedules to avoid any future default judgments. Overall, the judgment reflects a balanced application of legal principles to uphold the rights of the parties involved while maintaining procedural fairness in the adjudicative process.