1991 (10) TMI 72 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal decided ex parte due to miscommunication.
2. Denial of opportunity to be heard.
3. Duty of assessee's counsel to ascertain the status of adjournment applications.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-B involved an appeal decided ex parte due to miscommunication. The appeals for assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were fixed for hearing on different dates but were requested to be consolidated by the assessee's Chartered Accountants. Despite the adjournment of one appeal to a later date communicated telephonically, no appearance was made on behalf of the assessee on the scheduled date, leading to the ex parte decision. The Misc. Application highlighted the lack of formal communication regarding the adjournment, resulting in the denial of the opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal acknowledged the miscommunication but emphasized the duty of the assessee and their counsel to verify the status of such requests. The Tribunal found that the appeals were decided on merits, granting relief where due.

Regarding the denial of the opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal recognized that the situation arose from the Chartered Accountants' oversight despite the request for consolidation being accepted. While relief was provided in the ex parte order, the Tribunal deemed it necessary for the assessee to be heard in the interest of justice. Consequently, the consolidated order was recalled, and the appeals were restored to the record for refixing the hearing in the normal course. The judgment emphasized that penalizing the assessee for the counsel's fault would be unjust, necessitating a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The judgment also underscored the duty of the assessee's counsel to ascertain the correct status of adjournment applications. It was noted that the Chartered Accountants should have taken steps to clarify the situation with the Tribunal's Registry to avoid misunderstandings. The Tribunal emphasized that assumptions regarding the acceptance of adjournment requests could lead to adverse consequences, highlighting the importance of actively verifying the status of such requests to prevent miscommunications and ensure a fair hearing for the parties involved.