2015 (3) TMI 804 - HC - Income Tax

Defective applications for grant of stay rejected - whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief? - Held that - There is no dispute that a communication was sent by the advocate for the appellant/petitioner, enclosing a medical certificate in proof of he being sick and on account of the same, not being able to attend the Tribunal and take steps to cure the notified defects. The Tribunal, without taking into consideration the reason stated in the communication sent seeking adjournment and also the annexed medical certificate, has passed the impugned order, whereby, the said applications were dismissed. If the advocate for the petitioner/appellant had not sought adjournment on medical grounds, the Tribunal would have been justified in passing the impugned order. Since adjournment was sought on the ground of illness of the advocate, which was certified by a medical practitioner, the Tribunal has acted with material irregularity in not taking into consideration the said fact and in passing the impugned order. There is lack of application of mind and focused consideration. Except the sentence, noticed supra, there is no reasoning. is lack of application of mind. Non-consideration of the prayer for adjournment sought on medical ground by the advocate on record is apparent. There is denial of reasonable opportunity. W.P. allowed. Petitioner is permitted to file fresh applications for grant of stay, if so advised, within a period of two weeks from today.

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of stay applications by the Tribunal.
2. Denial of adjournment on medical grounds.
3. Lack of application of mind by the Tribunal.
4. Interference with the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal granted an opportunity to the appellant to rectify defects in stay applications but dismissed them due to the defects not being rectified. The writ petitions challenged this decision.
2. The appellant's advocate sought an adjournment due to a medical condition, supported by a medical certificate. The Tribunal did not consider this reason and dismissed the applications.
3. The Tribunal's decision lacked proper reasoning and application of mind. The judgment cited the importance of clarity, reasoning, and focused consideration in judicial decisions.
4. The High Court found that the Tribunal's decision was irrational, denying a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The impugned order was quashed, allowing the appellant to file fresh stay applications within two weeks and directing the Tribunal to decide the appeals within three months from the next hearing date.