1992 (3) TMI 117 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Request for amendment of appeal order based on non-service of hearing/show-cause notice by the CIT and alleged mistake in the order.
2. Consideration of evidence and arguments presented by both parties.
3. Determination of whether the Tribunal has the authority to review and amend the order based on the presented grounds.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner-company filed a miscellaneous application seeking an amendment to the appeal order, claiming that the order passed by the CIT under section 263 was contrary to the rules of natural justice due to alleged non-service of hearing/show-cause notice. The counsel argued that the Tribunal should have called for evidence to verify the service of notice before passing the order. The petitioner relied on judgments from the Allahabad High Court to support their contentions. The departmental representative opposed the application, stating that the petitioner, by remaining ex parte, cannot seek a review of the order.

2. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner did not raise any grievance about the ex parte disposal of the appeal. It was observed that the petitioner did not appear for the scheduled hearing despite being aware of it, indicating a deliberate choice to obtain an ex parte order. The CIT mentioned issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner, which was not responded to, leading to the decision based on available records. The Tribunal found no substantial evidence supporting the claim of non-service of notice by the CIT.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that while the petitioner had the option to submit written evidence to support their grounds, no such evidence was provided. It was highlighted that the Tribunal is not obligated to search for evidence on behalf of an ex parte appellant. The Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent on record that could be rectified under the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, stating that it lacked the authority to review the order based on the grounds presented by the petitioner.

In conclusion, the Tribunal denied the request for amendment of the appeal order, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence supporting the petitioner's claims regarding non-service of notice. The decision highlighted the importance of parties presenting reliable evidence to support their arguments and clarified the limitations of the Tribunal in reviewing orders based on grounds not substantiated by evidence.