9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee, could not be said to be a disposal on the merits after hearing the parties. The first respondent Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous applications holding that no case has been made out for restoration and for the reason that there was no error or mistake apparent on the record, by its order dated May 21, 1984. It is to cancel the said order dated May 21, 1984, and to rehear the main appeals that W. T. A. Nos. 583 to 596/(Mas) of 1982 and W. P. No. 7706 of 1984 have been filed. Having regard to the limited controversy in these proceedings, it would be unnecessary for this court to advert to the various claims and counter-claims made on the merits of the appeals filed before the Tribunal or with the cases themselves. Suffice it to notice certain salient features that are absolutely necessary for adjudicating on the grievance and claim made at the time of the hearing. The petitioner filed various appeals under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and Rules made thereunder as against the orders of assessment made in respect of different years as found noticed in the impugned orders. The appeals in question appeared to have come up for hearing before the Tribunal on October 11, 1983. Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to have been filed. In the affidavit, it is stated that a request was made to pass over the appeals to await counsel, that the judicial Member wanted the auditor to state the facts, that the auditor was not authorised to appear in the appeals and "this fact was brought to the notice of the Bench", that the appeals involve substantial issues of law and that the auditor was required to state certain facts and thereafter the Bench rose abruptly, giving an impression that the appeals had been adjourned. It is also stated in the affidavit that the petitioner approached the judicial Member requesting for an early hearing of the appeals and that he was given an impression that the appeals would be posted for hearing, but on December 1, 1983, the petitioner received the order of the Tribunal dated October 28, 1983, dismissing all the appeals. While admitting the position that the order refers to the representation made by the Auditor of the petitioner, it is claimed that though the auditor came to the Tribunal, he had no authorisation to appear and he had come only to instruct counsel and this fact was also brought to the notice of the Bench, meaning thereby the Tribunal and that notwit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Wealth-tax Act and section 288 of the Income-tax Act, wherein appearance by authorised representatives has also been referred to. Mr. N. V. Balasubramanian, learned standing counsel for the Department, with equal force, while traversing the claims made by learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the auditor's representation at the time of hearing of appeals was quite in accordance with law and that the petitioner who was present not having objected to the appearance and argument of the case by the auditor is estopped from later turning round to contend that the auditor had no authorisation when the order went against the petitioner. It is also contended by standing counsel that the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his representations was not in conformity with the manner and form prescribed, as rightly noticed by the Tribunal, and that at any rate the appeals having been disposed of on the merits, the only remedy open to the petitioner was to pursue further proceedings under the Act before this court by means of seeking a reference and the petitioner having availed of that remedy also, there is no justification in the claim of the petitioner in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged impression gained by the petitioner, as noted in the letter dated October 14, 1983, is an improvement sought to be introduced which has been further improved in the petition dated November 25, 1983, wherein for the first time the want of authority was mentioned. The affidavit dated December 7, 1983, introduces a new version for the first time that as the auditor was making representations the Bench rose abruptly giving an impression that the appeals had been adjourned. The further claim that, even at the time of hearing, the want of authority in the auditor has been brought to the notice of the Tribunal and in spite of the same, the presence of the auditor was noticed and the appeals were dismissed is the climax of the ingenuity of the petitioner invented for the occasion. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraph 7 of the order dated October 28, 1983, which reads: " Even at the time of hearing, it has been admitted by learned counsel for the assessee that no exemption under section 5(1)(iv) was allowed. . . . " to contend that the Tribunal was under the mistaken impression about the person who appeared. The assumption in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
