9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. 3. By filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur, the appellant challenged the assessment orders for the assessment year 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 passed by the assessing officer by assessing income of assessee under Section 144 r/w Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). Since the appeals were dismissed, the appellant approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'ITAT') by filing further appeals. By the impugned order dated 1-2-2013, ITAT dismissed all three appeals by common order on the ground that none appeared on behalf of the assessee which means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting these appeals. This order is questioned in the present appeals. 4. At the time of issuanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he controversy, it is necessary to consider the provision contained in Rule 24 of the Rules of 1963 which is as under. Rule 24 : "Where on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the Appellant does not appear in person or through an authorized representative, when the Appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent ; Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards, and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex-parte order and restoring the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in prosecuting the appeals is unsustainable. The Tribunal was duty bound to decide the appeals on merits after hearing the respondent - Revenue as per mandate of Rule 24 and in terms of ratio in S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (supra). 10. The substantial question is answered by holding that in view of language used in Rule 24, the ITAT was not justified in dismissing the appeals for absence of assessee in limine and it ought to have decided the appeals on merits even if the appellant or his representative was not present when the appeals were taken up for hearing. The impugned order therefore, being contrary to Rule 24 of the Rules of 1963 is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the following order. (a) In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
