9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file and in the meantime the prosecution launched against the petitioner be stayed. Learned counsel for the parties have also addressed us on this limited question and, therefore, we are not required to set out the averments made in the petition in support of the other reliefs sought in paragraph 28 of the petition. The facts relevant for the disposal of the limited question are as under : The petitioner made an application under the Amnesty Scheme to the Commissioner of Income-tax and paid the tax as per the said scheme. The petitioner thereafter addressed a letter dated March 27, 1987, to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, stating that the petitioner intended to file a return for the assessment year 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal, accordingly, announced the decision in the open court giving permission to the assessees to withdraw the appeal after considering its application. This observation gives the impression that the appeal was orally permitted to be withdrawn on April 14, 1987. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was not informed that the date of hearing of the appeal was advanced to April 2, 1987, nor was the petitioner informed that the formal order permitting withdrawal of the appeal would be passed on April 14, 1987. On the petitioner's coming to know about the disposal of appeal, the petitioner made an application some time in May, 1987, to the Tribunal to recall its order of dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn and to post the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order of April 14, 1987, and to hear the appeal on merits on the ground that though the Tribunal had power to do so, it would exercise it in rarest of rare cases. It is a matter of volition of a party whether or not it desires to proceed with the appeal or withdraw the same. It would not be open to the Tribunal to advance the date of hearing without intimation to the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had communicated to the Tribunal its decision to proceed with the appeal on merits before the date of hearing, that is, April 2, 1987. It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal committed an error firstly in advancing the date without intimation to the assessee, thereafter proceeding to pass a formal order on April 14, 1987, notwithstanding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
