9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been brought on record. The observations have been made even to the effect that the appellant Revenue had not moved any application seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the sole respondent. It is but clear that while passing the aforesaid order dated 16.09.2011, the facts got overlooked that the appellant Revenue had indeed moved an application seeking substitution of the legal representatives of respondent Badri Prasad way back on 22.11.2005 and that the matter was being processed upon the said application only, and the notices were ordered to be issued on 22.11.2005 to the proposed legal representatives. The observations in the order dated 16.09.2011 are also indicative that the said Badri Prasad Bhatia was himself t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir behalf. - Civil Review Petition No. 65/2011 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2013 - Dinesh Maheshwari And Nisha Gupta,JJ. Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Singhvi, for the non-petitioners. ORDER By way of this petition, the Revenue has sought review of the order dated 16.09.2011 as passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 66/2004 whereby, a co-ordinate Bench proceeded to dismiss the appeal considering it to have abated for failure on the part of the appellant to bring the legal representatives of the sole respondent on record. The order impugned, in its entirety, reads as under: This appeal is pending since Year 2004 and no process fees is being paid for issuance of notice to respondent assessee. In the meantime, this ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued to all the legal representatives of the original assessee Mangi Lal Bhatia, the proceedings suffered from fundamental and incurable infirmity; and were wholly without jurisdiction. The CIT(A) upheld such a contention and while allowing the appeal, annulled the assessment by his order dated 26.02.1993. Then, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order dated 26.02.1993 was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur [ the Tribunal ] by its order dated 07.01.2004. The Tribunal affirmed the views of the CIT(A) and held that the proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction for want of notice to all the legal representatives of the deceased assessee. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to put in the requisites within time, per the force of the peremptory order dated 13.03.2008, the appeal came to be dismissed. However, such dismissal was set aside by the order dated 24.11.2010 as passed in Restoration Application No. 03208/2009. The appeal, restored as noticed above, further remained pending for want of service on the proposed legal representatives and again, for consistent defaults of the appellant as regards put in the requisites, the matter was again placed before the Court on 16.09.2011 when the order impugned came to be passed, dismissing the appeal as having abated. This petition seeking review has been filed by the appellant Revenue with the submissions, inter alia, that the observations as made in the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act; and for want of such notice, the proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the non-petitioners, no useful purpose would be served with review and recall of the order dated 16.09.2011, as passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 66/2004. Having considered the matter in its totality, we are clearly of the view that the contentions as urged by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners are not relevant, so far the subject-matter of the present review petition is concerned. Herein, the core question is as to whether the impugned order dated 16.09.2011 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record and thus, calls for review. In our view, it does. A bare look at the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel Mr. Vipul Singhvi has put in appearance on behalf of the proposed legal representatives, of course, in this review petition, there does not appear any reason to enter into this aspect of the matter any more. However, it is considered appropriate and hence observed that so far the prayer seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the sole respondent Badri Prasad Bhatia is concerned, it remains to be examined and considered in appeal. The appearance on behalf of the non-petitioners in this petition could only be considered as made on behalf of the proposed legal representatives. In other words, it would remain open for the non-petitioners herein to raise all their objections in regard to the application seeking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
