2020 (7) TMI 12 - AT - Income Tax

Seeking recalling of an order - Reasonable cause for the assessee to seek adjournment - violation of the principle of Natural Justice - Tribunal was of the opinion that since no Vakalatnama had been filed in the name of Shri Somnath Ghosh (Advocate appeared and sought for adjournment) the adjournment application was rejected and the Bench proceeded to dispose of the appeals after hearing the Ld. DR - HELD THAT - We note from a perusal of the Misc. Application which has been verified by Shri Varun More, Director of the assessee company that though the assessee had infact authorized Shri Somnath Ghosh to appear on behalf of the assessee. However, since the copy of the appeal could be given only a day before the case was listed for hearing, the Advocate could not be briefed by the Director of the assessee company because he was recovering from viral fever and also was infected with Pharyngitis. Prescription of the doctor has also been enclosed along with the adjournment application. So, according to us, there was reasonable cause for the assessee to seek adjournment. However, in the impugned order the Tribunal taking note that no Vakalatnama in the name of Shri Somnath Ghosh was filed before it, the Tribunal took a view that Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate is not the AR of the assessee and, therefore, it proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. Assessee company had authenticated that Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate is their AR and, therefore, we are of the opinion that due to confusion created because of non-filing of Vakalatnama had led to the impugned order being passed by the Tribunal. There has been a violation of the principle of Natural Justice and, according to us, since assessee had not been effectively heard/not-heard before the disposal of the appeal, we recall the impugned order of the Tribunal and the Registry is directed to fix all the aforementioned appeals that are restored in due course. Misc. applications of assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principle of natural justice by the Tribunal in disposing of appeals without hearing the assessee due to confusion regarding authorized representative.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to Misc. Applications (MAs) filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal dated 22.02.2018 for AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12. The Tribunal had initially granted an adjournment on 19.02.2018 when the Ld. AR of the assessee filed a petition. However, on 21.02.2018, a different person, Shri Somnath Ghosh, claiming to be the Ld. AR, requested another adjournment without filing a Vakalatnama. The Tribunal rejected this adjournment and proceeded to dispose of the appeals based on the submissions of the Ld. DR, leading to the dismissal of all appeals by the assessee. The MAs highlighted that Shri Somnath Ghosh was authorized to represent the assessee, but the Vakalatnama was not filed due to the advocate's illness, which was supported by a medical prescription. The Director of the assessee company verified the authorization of Shri Somnath Ghosh and explained the circumstances that led to the technical omission. The Tribunal's decision was contested on the grounds of violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not effectively heard before the disposal of the appeal.

The Tribunal acknowledged the confusion caused by the non-filing of the Vakalatnama and the subsequent passing of the impugned order without hearing the assessee. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal recognized a violation of the principle of natural justice and concluded that the assessee had not been effectively heard before the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was recalled, and all the appeals were restored for proper hearing. The MAs of the assessee were allowed, and the Tribunal directed the Registry to fix the appeals for further proceedings. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring that parties are given a fair hearing and that procedural technicalities should not impede the right to be heard in legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of the Tribunal's failure to hear the assessee due to a technical omission regarding the authorized representative. By recalling the impugned order and allowing the MAs, the Tribunal upheld the principle of natural justice and ensured that the assessee's right to be heard was respected, emphasizing the importance of fair procedures in legal proceedings.