9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUPREME Court), has held that rule 24 of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that the Tribunal cannot dismiss the appeal without adverting to the merits. Therefore, though the petitioner assessee who was the appellant before the Tribunal has failed to appear before it during the course of hearing of the appeal, in the light of the provisions of rule 24 of the Rules, the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution but ought to have disposed of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. The impugned order being contrary to the provisions of rule 24 of the Rules as well as the above referred decision of this court in the case of Sanket Estate & Finance (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax (2012 (12) TMI 991 - GU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax (Appeals) who, by an order dated 26.7.2000, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty. The petitioner carried the matter in further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). It appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the address of the petitioner came to be changed and hence, the petitioner did not receive the notice issued by the Tribunal intimating it about the date of hearing of the appeal. By the impugned order dated 7.10.2005, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by assuming that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal, as it had not intimated the change in address to the Tribunal, which has given rise to the present petition. 3. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand came to be issued to the petitioner for recovery of the penalty amount, that the petitioner has thought it fit to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal. It was submitted that if at all this court is inclined to restore the appeal to the Tribunal in view of the law laid down in the case of Sanket Estate Finance (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra), suitable costs may be imposed on the petitioner. 5. In rejoinder, Mr. Bandish Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the record of the case to submit that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal and that the petitioner had tried to obtain a copy of the impugned order from the Tribunal whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Rules makes it abundantly clear that the Tribunal cannot dismiss the appeal without adverting to the merits. Therefore, though the petitioner assessee who was the appellant before the Tribunal has failed to appear before it during the course of hearing of the appeal, in the light of the provisions of rule 24 of the Rules, the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal for nonprosecution but ought to have disposed of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. The impugned order being contrary to the provisions of rule 24 of the Rules as well as the above referred decision of this court in the case of Sanket Estate Finance (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incometax (supra), cannot be sustained. 8. However, as rightly submitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
