2015 (4) TMI 188 - HC - Income Tax

Prayer for adjournment - applications for grant of stay having been found to be defective, opportunity was granted by the Tribunal, to remove the defects. Advocate for the petitioner sent a communication and sought time/adjournment - Stay applications rejected - Held that - There is lack of application of mind. Non-consideration of the prayer for adjournment sought on medical ground by the advocate on record is apparent. There is denial of reasonable opportunity. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order being irrational, is liable to be interfered with. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Petitioner is permitted to file fresh applications for grant of stay, if so advised, within a period of two weeks from today. Petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournment and shall extend ready co-operation to decide the stay applications and also the main appeals with expedition

Summary

Issues:
Opportunity for adjournment due to medical reasons denied by Tribunal leading to dismissal of stay applications.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of an opportunity for adjournment due to medical reasons by the Tribunal, resulting in the dismissal of stay applications. The appellant's advocate sought an adjournment to rectify defects in the applications due to a medical condition. However, the Tribunal dismissed the applications without considering the medical grounds cited. The main contention was the denial of a reasonable opportunity and the alleged haste in passing the impugned order.

The advocate for the appellant argued that the Tribunal acted hastily and without proper consideration, leading to a denial of a reasonable opportunity. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate defended the Tribunal's decision, stating that despite opportunities granted, the defects were not rectified, justifying the dismissal of the applications. The court analyzed the facts and contentions to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to relief.

The court found that the Tribunal had not considered the medical grounds for adjournment provided by the appellant's advocate, leading to a lack of application of mind. Citing a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of due application of mind and focused consideration in judicial decisions, the court concluded that the impugned order was irrational and warranted interference. The lack of consideration for the adjournment request on medical grounds and the denial of a reasonable opportunity were key factors in the decision.

Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned order, and permitted the petitioner to file fresh stay applications. The petitioner was instructed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate for expedited resolution. The Tribunal was directed to decide on the appeals promptly within three months from the next hearing date, emphasizing the need for a thorough and reasoned decision-making process in legal proceedings.