2010 (10) TMI 776 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed by the ITAT since the appellant was absent - power and obligation of tribunal - held that - Even if the appellant was absent when the DR was present, the Tribunal was required to proceed with the matters on merits with the available material on record. appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution much against the procedure. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has to dispose of the Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 112-116/2009 after taking into consideration whether the notice was served or not on the appellant/assessee and whether DR was present or not and then to proceed with the matter, appeals are allowed setting aside the order of dismissal and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to dispose of the matters in the light of the above observations after giving opportunity to both the parties

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act for an individual assessee, dismissal of appeals by the Tribunal, failure to receive notice of hearing, application of Rules 23 and 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, want of prosecution in dismissing appeals, remittance of the matter back to the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the assessment of an individual assessee for the assessment year 1986-87 and subsequent years up to 1991. The Assessment Officer scrutinized the appellant's case under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act and rejected the appellant's explanation regarding the source of income. Appeals were filed before the CIT (Appeals-I) and partly allowed on 20.10.1993. Subsequently, second appeals were made to the Tribunal, which were dismissed on 5.6.2003. The appellant then filed Miscellaneous Petitions on the grounds of not receiving any notice of hearing until 6.9.2007, leading to awareness of the dismissal of appeals in 2003.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the number of times the matter was posted and the delay of six and a half years in approaching the Tribunal with the miscellaneous petitions. The judgment highlighted the relevance of Rules 23 and 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules in this context. The Tribunal was criticized for not investigating whether the appellant received a hearing notice after the adjournment in 2003 and for dismissing the appeals for want of prosecution against the proper procedure.

The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the dismissal order of 10.2.2010 in Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 112-116/2009. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the observations made in the judgment. The Tribunal was directed to give both parties an opportunity to present their case effectively. The judgment emphasized the importance of following due process and ensuring fair consideration of the issues at hand.