9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en up at the Baroda camp - The Tribunal, unfortunately, has adopted very hyper technical approach in the matter and has rejected the applications on totally irrelevant grounds - Appeal is disposed of - 8544 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2010 - MEHTA D. A., HARSHA DEVANI MS. JJ. JUDGMENT Ms. Harsha Devani J.- Rule. Mr. K. M. Parikh learned standing counsel for the respondent-Revenue waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the controversy involved in the petition, which lies in a very narrow compass, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. This petition challenges consolidated order dated March 19, 2010 made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 405, 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Baroda camp scheduled between November 3, 2009 and November 13, 2009. The authorized representative on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, filed an application on October 12, 2009 requesting the Tribunal to accommodate the hearing of the petitioner's appeals at the camp at Baroda. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive any communication in response to the application filed for transfer of the hearing of the petitioner's appeals and that the petitioner was under a bona fide belief that a further notice, as per the request made by the petitioner, would be issued and that at the time of hearing the plea for condonation of delay would be made. However, on October 26, 2009 the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice would be issued and that at the time of hearing, the plea for con-donation of delay would be submitted. Inviting attention to the order made by the Tribunal, it was submitted that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for rejecting the applications made by the petitioner are not germane inasmuch as while considering an application under rule 24 of the Rules all that the Tribunal is required to see is as to whether the sufficient cause has been made out for non-appearance on the part of the appellant. On behalf of the Revenue, Mr. K. M. Parikh, learned standing counsel, has placed reliance upon the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent to submit that no sufficient cause has been made out on the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ready decided and was not authorized to appear in the appeals. The affidavit of Shri Mukund Bakshi, chartered accountant would be of no relevance. No facts are explained about non-appearance on the date of hearing or not moving petition for condonation of delay in affidavit. 6. Considering the above discussions, we find that the Tribunal in its wisdom, considering the facts available on record and particularly when there was no material on record to explain the delay in filing of the appeals, was justified in dismissing the appeals of the assessee being time barred. The succeeding Bench has no power to review earlier order of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, there is no mistake apparent on record. All the miscellaneous applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applications in question had been submitted to the Tribunal wherein the petitioner has specifically requested the Tribunal to consider its applications sympathetically in the interest of justice and to restore the appeals in terms of rule 24 of the Rules for the reasons mentioned in the said applications. A bare reading of the impugned order of the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal has rejected the applications on grounds which are not germane while considering applications under rule 24 of the Rules. As to whether the appeals were time barred and as to whether the petitioner had moved any application for condonation of delay in the matter are not considerations which have any relevance to an application under rule 24 of the Rules. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apparent that the petitioner had requested the Tribunal to fix the matter on an early date, pursuant to which the appeals had been fixed for hearing on October 26, 2009. However, in the light of the fact that there was a camp scheduled at Baroda between November 3, 2009 and November 13, 2009 the authorized representative on behalf of the petitioner had filed an application before the Tribunal on October 12, 2009 requesting the Tribunal to accommodate the hearing of the petitioner's appeals at the camp at Baroda. It appears that when the appeals came up for hearing on October 26, 2009 the application for hearing the petitioner's appeals at the camp at Baroda had escaped the attention of the Tribunal, which is apparent from the fact that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
