9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (1) TMI 106 - HC - Income TaxIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 - Power of tribunal - Tribunal has in the instant case recorded a clear finding of fact that the notice regarding the hearing of the appeal was not properly served upon the appellant in one appeal and the respondent in the other. In that view, therefore, the non-appearance of the appellant-assessee in the appeal filed by it or in the cross-appeal filed by the Revenue was for sufficient cause. The Tribunal was accordingly justified in recalling the order passed by it. There is no merit in this revenue s appeal nor any substantial question of law arises for our consideration. appeal dismissed
Issues: Rule 24 of ITAT Rules - Competency to recall order
The judgment pertains to the competency of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to recall an order passed in a case where the appellant or respondent did not appear during the hearing. The case involved cross-appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee, which were disposed of on the merits by the Tribunal. The assessee later sought a recall of the order, which the Tribunal allowed, setting aside its earlier decision and restoring the appeals for fresh hearing. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal was not authorized to recall the order but could only rectify it. The High Court disagreed, citing the proviso to Rules 24 and 25 of the ITAT Rules, which empower the Tribunal to set aside an ex parte order and restore the appeal if sufficient cause for non-appearance is demonstrated. The High Court emphasized that once the appellant proved a sufficient cause for non-appearance during the hearing, the Tribunal had the authority to set aside the order and reinstate the appeal. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the notice of the hearing was not properly served to the appellant or the respondent, justifying their non-appearance. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to recall the order was deemed appropriate based on the factual findings. The High Court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
|
