2022 (3) TMI 1576 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of ITAT orders - allegation of orders as arbitrary in nature and contrary to the applicable rules and Regulations - Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to restore the appeal of the petitioner as was filed initially and to pass a reasoned, lawful and valid order - petitioner states that though the petitioner s proxy counsel had prayed for an adjournment and even filed an adjournment application, yet the Tribunal in the impugned order had recorded the concession of the appellant s proxy counsel to the impugned order being set aside with a direction to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits HELD THAT - On the last date of hearing respondent had prayed for some time to obtain instructions. Today he states that the Assessing Officer has no objection to the present matter being remanded back to the ITAT for a fresh decision. Consequently, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned orders dated 16th January, 2020 and 18th November, 2021 are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the ITAT to decide the matter afresh. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to orders dated 16th January, 2020 and 18th November, 2021 as arbitrary and contrary to rules.
2. Restoration of appeal and direction for a reasoned, lawful order.
3. Conversion of order into ex parte due to absence of vakalatnama.
4. Direction to CIT(A) to decide appeal on merits.
5. Revival of Assessing Officer's initial order.
6. Remand of matter back to ITAT for a fresh decision with the consent of parties.
7. Disposal of writ petition and pending application.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders dated 16th January, 2020 and 18th November, 2021, alleging arbitrariness and non-compliance with regulations. The petitioner sought restoration of the appeal as originally filed and a direction for a reasoned and lawful order. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Tribunal's orders directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, leading to the revival of the Assessing Officer's initial order.

2. The petitioner's proxy counsel's absence of a vakalatnama led to the conversion of the order into an ex parte decision by the Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the proxy counsel did not consent to setting aside the impugned order, as recorded by the Tribunal. Subsequently, the Tribunal, upon an affidavit from the proxy counsel, converted the concessional order into an ex parte order, citing the absence of a vakalatnama as the reason.

3. During the proceedings, the respondent's counsel expressed no objection to remanding the matter back to the ITAT for a fresh decision. With the consent of both parties, the High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 16th January, 2020 and 18th November, 2021, and remanded the matters to the ITAT for a fresh determination. The High Court clarified that the rights and contentions of all parties remain open.

4. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the present writ petition and all pending applications in light of the direction to remand the matter back to the ITAT. The order allowed exemption subject to all just exceptions and effectively disposed of the application in question.