2014 (8) TMI 348 - HC - Income Tax

Ex-parte order passed by Tribunal non appearance of assessee - No malafide intention - Held that - As such there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee not to remain present at the time of hearing of the appeal before the tribunal on 15/04/2013 the court was of the opinion that if on imposing reasonable cost upon the assessee, one additional opportunity is given to submit the case on merits before the tribunal matter restored back to tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of petition to challenge ex-parte dismissal of appeal by tribunal.
2. Quashing and setting aside of impugned order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Restoration of appeal to the file of the tribunal with conditions.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with granting leave to amend the petition to challenge the original order passed by the tribunal dismissing the appeal ex-parte on 15/04/2013. This sets the stage for the subsequent legal proceedings.

2. The petitioner, an assessee, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order dated 13/09/2013 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal had dismissed the appeal ex-parte and the petitioner also sought to quash the original order dated 15/04/2013. The advocates for both parties were heard, and the circumstances leading to the ex-parte order were considered.

3. After hearing the advocates, the Court noted that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee for not being present during the appeal hearing. It was observed that granting one additional opportunity to the petitioner to present the case on merits before the tribunal would serve the interests of justice. The Court emphasized the importance of cooperation from the petitioner's representative during the appeal process.

4. The learned Counsel for the revenue did not object to the Court's decision to allow the petition and restore the matter to the tribunal for a fresh decision. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of &8377; 5,000 with the Registry within a week. Upon receipt of the deposit, the tribunal was instructed to decide and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law and on its own merits. The petitioner's representative was required to cooperate for the timely disposal of the appeal.

5. In conclusion, the Special Civil Application was allowed, and both the impugned order of the tribunal dated 13/09/2013 and the original order dated 15/04/2013 were quashed and set aside. The appeal was restored to the tribunal's file with the condition of the deposit. The Court directed the Registry to transmit the deposited amount to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, making the rule absolute and permitting direct service.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the issues addressed by the Court and the legal implications of the decision for the parties involved.