9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed its return of income for assessment year 1991-92 on 31.12.1991 showing income of Rs. Nil. After scrutiny, the foreign exchange fluctuation loss on purchase of plant and machinery charged to revenue account was disallowed and total addition of Rs. 14,76,277/- was made vide assessment order dated 5.1.1994 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act). Subsequently, by an order dated 28.9.1995 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the respondent No.1 imposed penalty of Rs. 8,48,860/-. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who, by an order dated 26.7.2000, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty. The petitioner carried the matter in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Opposing the petition, Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent submitted that there has been considerable delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. It was submitted that the petitioner being the appellant before the Tribunal, ought to have informed the Tribunal about the change in address. That in the absence of the change of address having been notified to the Tribunal, no fault can be found on the part of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non- prosecution. It was submitted that it is only after notices of demand came to be issued to the petitioner for recovery of the penalty amount, that the petitioner has thought it fit to challenge the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er considering the scheme of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and more particularly rule 24 thereof, which provides that where, on the day fixed for hearing or any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent, as well as in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (supra), 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
