9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal and right of respondent to file a petition for restoration. 2. Interpretation of rules 24 and 25 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. 3. Application of judicial precedents on the power of the Tribunal to set aside ex parte orders. 4. Consideration of sufficient cause for non-appearance in a hearing. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with a Misc. Application filed for the restoration of an appeal and the right of the respondent to file a petition for restoration. The respondent, in this case, sought restoration of the appeal and an opportunity to represent their case before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal examined the provisions of rule 25 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules and considered whether the respondent has the right to file a petition for restoration after the appeal has been disposed of on merits. 2. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Murlidhar Surda v. ITAT [1973] 92 ITR 189 (Cal.) and highlighted the broad observations made by the Court regarding the powers of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal has the power to ensure fair and proper opportunities for all parties involved in the appeal. The judgment of the Learned single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in ITO v. Murlidhar Sarda [1975] 99 ITR 485, which further clarified the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in setting aside ex parte orders and re-hearing appeals. 3. The Kerala High Court's decision in CIT v. ITAT [1979] 120 ITR 231 was also considered, where the Court discussed the powers of the Tribunal to set aside ex parte orders and re-hear appeals. The Division Bench of the Court emphasized that the power to set aside an ex parte order and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard is inherent in the jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act. The Court rejected the argument that the absence of a specific provision in rule 25 of the Rules indicated a deliberate legislative distinction between dismissal for default and ex parte decisions on merits. 4. In the present case, the Tribunal examined the petition for restoration and heard the counsel for the assessee. It was established that the assessee's counsel was unable to appear for the hearing due to a medical emergency involving surgery on the left eye. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the assessee and set aside the ex parte order, restoring the appeal for a hearing in the following month. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Misc. Application for restoration based on the sufficient cause presented for the non-appearance of the assessee, in line with the principles established by judicial precedents regarding the Tribunal's powers to set aside ex parte orders and ensure fair opportunities for all parties in the appeal process.
|
