2012 (5) TMI 258 - HC - Income Tax

Ex-parte order of the tribunal - Revenue defended the order of the Tribunal and submitted that Counsel for assessee was avoiding the hearing and a last opportunity was granted to him, but again he sent an application for adjournment of the case, therefore, the Tribunal rejected the application and heard the Counsel for the Revenue and rightly decided the appeal. - held that - Tribunal committed an illegality in rejecting the application for adjournment and in deciding the appeal, exparte, without hearing the learned counsel for assessee, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and order of the Tribunal deserves to be set-aside on this ground alone. However cost of Rs. 21,000 imposed on the assessee - If the amount of cost is deposited in the Department within a period of four weeks and receipt thereof is furnished in the Tribunal, then the Tribunal will decide the matter afresh on merits, after hearing both the parties, otherwise this appeal will be deemed to have been dismissed and no further opportunity will be granted to the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Tribunal's order dated 26.02.2010.
- Rejection of adjournment application by the Tribunal.
- Legality of rejecting adjournment and deciding the appeal ex-parte.
- Consideration of whether a case can be adjourned again after granting a last opportunity.
- Examination of whether sufficient cause existed for adjournment on the date fixed for hearing.

Analysis:

The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Tribunal's order dated 26.02.2010. The appellant's counsel had requested an adjournment on 08.02.2010 due to urgent work in Mumbai, but the Tribunal rejected the application and heard the case ex-parte. The appellant argued that even if a last opportunity was granted, a case could be adjourned again if a sufficient ground existed. The Tribunal, however, defended its decision, stating that the appellant's counsel was avoiding the hearing, and a last opportunity had already been granted. The High Court examined the submissions and the original Tribunal file summoned by them.

The main issue considered was whether a case could be adjourned again after granting a last opportunity to the appellant's counsel. The facts revealed that a last opportunity had been given, and an adjournment was requested due to urgent work in Mumbai. The Tribunal's rejection of the adjournment application without assigning reasons was deemed an illegality. The High Court held that in the interest of justice, a short adjournment should have been granted if a sufficient cause was shown. The Tribunal's failure to consider the grounds for adjournment and deciding the appeal ex-parte was considered unjust.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, remitted the case back for fresh consideration, and imposed a cost of Rs.21,000 on the appellant. The Court directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date, emphasizing that no further opportunity would be granted if the cost was not deposited within four weeks. The High Court's decision favored the appellant, highlighting the importance of considering reasonable causes for adjournment and ensuring a fair hearing in tax matters.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment emphasized the need for proper consideration of adjournment requests and ensuring a fair hearing process in tax appeals, setting a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.