9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and hearing the appeal on merits. In such circumstances, the applications filed ought to have been treated as one filed for setting aside the ex-parte order and the appeals ought to have been restored to be heard on merits. It is seen from the affidavit filed produced as Annexure-E, before the Tribunal that there was a Company Appeal pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi for reason of disputes having arisen within the Management and between the Directors. Notice on the appeal is said to have been received by one of the Directors, who have been specifically removed as per the order of the NCLAT. The present management came into office on the basis of the NCLAT order which is dated 24.5.2017. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). 2. The learned counsel for the appellant assessee argues that there was no warrant for treating the applications as one for rectification. Though there is no specific application for restoration as provided in the Act, Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 ('ITAT Rules' for short) provides for hearing of an appeal ex-parte when there is default by the appellant and also provides for setting aside the ex-parte order and restoration of the appeal, if the Tribunal is satisfied of sufficient cause for the default; here the non-appearance of the party and the Advocate. In the present case, when appeals filed for the respective years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs, we ourselves would consider the reasons stated by the appellant for the delay. It is seen from the affidavit filed produced as Annexure-E, before the Tribunal that there was a Company Appeal pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi for reason of disputes having arisen within the Management and between the Directors. Notice on the appeal is said to have been received by one of the Directors, who have been specifically removed as per the order of the NCLAT. The present management came into office on the basis of the NCLAT order which is dated 24.5.2017. The applications themselves are filed on 20.12.2017. The dismissal of the earlier appeals were on 19.11.2015. Though sufficient cause has been shown, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
