2016 (3) TMI 1343 - AT - Income Tax

Adjournment petition - assessee s counsel Mr. G. Gopalan is not in station on account of a medical emergency and he is not in a position to appoint another counsel within the short time span - earlier adjournment letter, the assessee stated that assessee s counsel was Shri G. Gopalan and now, he is stating that Shri C.M. Shrikanth Subramanian, FCA - HELD THAT - The assessee is not able to satisfy the Bench that there exists a reasonable cause for not appearing before the Tribunal on the scheduled date of hearing, i.e. on 1.6.2015. Had it been, if proper vakalat is filed in the name of Shri G. Gopalan or in the name of Shri C.M.Shrikanth Subramanian, in earlier occasion, we would have taken a liberal view to recall the order of the Tribunal, since the assessee has filed adjournment letter and affidavit. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee is only tried to prepare the document to show that there is good and sufficient reason for not appearing before the Tribunal. We are not convinced by the reasons advanced by the assessee to recall the earlier order of the Tribunal. Adjournment petition cannot be allowed stating that the counsel is not in station due to medical emergency. - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of ex parte order due to non-appearance of assessee's counsel.
2. Discrepancy in the reasons provided for non-appearance before the Tribunal.
3. Request for recall of Tribunal's order based on the illness of the authorized representative.
4. Opposition to the recall by the Departmental Representative.

Issue 1:
The assessee sought the recall of the ex parte order of the Tribunal dated 5.6.2015 due to non-appearance of the counsel. The case was adjourned multiple times at the request of the assessee, but on the scheduled date, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal rejected the adjournment petition as it found the reason provided for non-appearance unreasonable, noting discrepancies in the Power of Attorney and the names of counsels mentioned.

Issue 2:
The authorized representative informed the assessee about the next hearing date, but due to the representative's illness, no adjournment letter was filed on the scheduled date. The assessee claimed that the illness was the reason for the non-appearance and requested the order's recall. However, the Tribunal found contradictions in the statements provided by the assessee regarding the identity of the counsel, leading to the dismissal of the recall request.

Issue 3:
The assessee submitted an affidavit stating that the authorized representative was unwell and prevented from appearing before the Tribunal, attributing the situation to the representative's illness. The assessee attempted to establish a reasonable cause for not appearing but failed to provide consistent and convincing reasons, leading to the rejection of the recall petition.

Issue 4:
The Departmental Representative opposed the recall, arguing that there was no valid reason to recall the Tribunal's order as the issue had already been decided on merits. The Tribunal considered both parties' arguments, reviewed the submissions, and concluded that the discrepancies in the reasons provided by the assessee did not warrant the recall of the earlier order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the petition of the assessee, upholding the previous decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the reasons presented by the assessee for the recall of the ex parte order to be inconsistent and unconvincing, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The decision was based on the lack of clarity and contradictions in the information provided, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's original order.