9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the assessee. However, since the copy of the appeal could be given only a day before the case was listed for hearing, the Advocate could not be briefed by the Director of the assessee company because he was recovering from viral fever and also was infected with Pharyngitis. Prescription of the doctor has also been enclosed along with the adjournment application. So, according to us, there was reasonable cause for the assessee to seek adjournment. However, in the impugned order the Tribunal taking note that no Vakalatnama in the name of Shri Somnath Ghosh was filed before it, the Tribunal took a view that Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate is not the AR of the assessee and, therefore, it proceeded ex parte qua the assessee. Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ested time on 21.2.2018 to argue the appeals. The request of Ld. AR to adjourn the appeals was granted and appeals were fixed for hearing for 21.2.2018. On 21.2.2018 an application for adjournment was received from another person Shri Somnath Ghosh claiming to be Ld. AR of the Assessee. There is no Vakalatnama in the name of Shri Somnath Ghosh filed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the adjournment application is rejected and the Bench proceeded to dispose the appeals filed by the assessee on the basis of submission of Ld. DR and materials available on record. 2. Thereafter, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals preferred by the assessee. Against the aforesaid action of the Tribunal, the assessee company has preferred all these MAs. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... latnama of Shri Somnath Ghosh and the Tribunal citing this technical omission did not accept the adjournment application moved by the assessee. Therefore, it was prayed that in the interest of justice the impugned order passed by the Tribunal without hearing the assessee should be re called. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and have gone through the records. We note that the Tribunal had fixed the case for hearing on 19.02.2018 and at that time one Shri Brojesh Sharma, AR of the assessee had filed adjournment petition and requested to fix the case on 21.02.2018. However, on 21.02.2018, Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate appeared and again sought for adjournment. The Tribunal was of the opinion that since no Vakalatnama had been filed in the name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
