2004 (8) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

Miscarriage of justice - Adjournment application moved by the appellant had been rejected on the ground that there are more than one counsel. The view taken may be correct, but taking into consideration that the Tribunal had earlier directed the departmental representative to produce the file of CIT(Appeals) for decision of the case before it and the departmental representative, however, did not produce the file of the CIT (Appeals) and adverse view against the appellant has been taken on the ground that the appeal was filed by a different person and signature was forged on the memo of appeal. As the file of the CIT (Appeals) was not before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had no material whatsoever, to arrive at such a conclusion - we are inclined to interfere by exercising our powers conferred under article 227 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant after ensuring that the file of the CIT of the relevant assessment year in question is produced before it

Summary

Issues:
Misuse of power by the Tribunal in rejecting adjournment application due to multiple counsels, miscarriage of justice due to absence of relevant documents before the Tribunal, interference by High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The High Court, consisting of Judges R. K. Agrawal and K. N. Ojha, heard arguments from both parties' counsels. The Court acknowledged that the income-tax appeal did not present a substantial question of law arising from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated July 28, 2003. However, the Court noted a miscarriage of justice in the case. The appellant's adjournment application was rejected by the Tribunal based on the presence of multiple counsels, which the Court deemed a correct view. Nevertheless, the Tribunal's decision was influenced by the absence of the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), as earlier directed, leading to an adverse judgment against the appellant on the grounds of a different person filing the appeal and alleged signature forgery on the memo of appeal. The Court emphasized that without the Commissioner's file, the Tribunal lacked the necessary material to reach such a conclusion.

The High Court, exercising its authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, decided to intervene in the matter. The Court set aside the Tribunal's impugned order and directed the Tribunal to reevaluate the case. The Tribunal was instructed to provide the appellant with an opportunity to present their case afresh, ensuring that the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax for the relevant assessment year was made available before making a decision. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of by the High Court, emphasizing the importance of a fair and thorough consideration of all relevant documents in reaching a just outcome.