2008 (1) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

Adjournment sought was rejected assesse s counsel had to appear before other HC no valid reason given by tribunal for non-adjournment adjournment sought only for 12 days while order passed after 11 weeks ex-parte order passed by tribunal is quashed as it is not accordance with law

Summary

Issues:
1. Proceeding ex parte against the appellant's counsel's adjournment request.
2. Validity of the Tribunal's decision to hear the appeal ex parte.
3. Interpretation of rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
4. Justifiability of not adjourning the case despite the counsel's request.
5. Consideration of circumstances for granting adjournment.
6. Timeliness of the Tribunal's decision-making process.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a substantial question of law regarding the Tribunal's decision to proceed ex parte despite the appellant's counsel requesting an adjournment. The High Court admitted the appeal for hearing based on this issue.

2. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had previously dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation, which was challenged and remanded back to the Tribunal for a hearing on the merits. However, on the date of the hearing, the appellant's counsel requested an adjournment, which was rejected by the Tribunal, leading to the ex parte hearing. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's haste indicated bias towards dismissing the appeal without granting a fair opportunity to contest the matter.

3. The respondent's counsel contended that the Tribunal had the authority to proceed ex parte if the appellant did not appear after notice. However, the High Court emphasized that the appellant had the right to apply for setting aside the ex parte order under rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The High Court clarified that it could interfere if the order was illegal due to non-exercise of jurisdiction and discretion.

4. The High Court considered the circumstances surrounding the adjournment request, noting that the counsel had submitted the application a day before the hearing, citing a scheduling conflict with another court appearance. The Court emphasized the importance of accommodating such requests as a sign of respect for the legal profession and other court commitments.

5. It was observed that a short adjournment would not have significantly delayed the proceedings, and the Tribunal did not provide a valid reason for not granting the adjournment. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to proceed ex parte was unjustified, especially considering the fixed date requested by the appellant's counsel.

6. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal was not justified in proceeding ex parte and deciding against the appellant. The Tribunal's order was set aside and quashed, with directions for the parties to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date for a fair hearing and decision in accordance with the law.