TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court corrects appeal dismissal error, emphasizes proper legal representation procedures.</h1> <h3>CIT. 2, Jodhpur Versus Mangi Lal</h3> CIT. 2, Jodhpur Versus Mangi Lal - [2013] 352 ITR 422 Issues:1. Review of order dismissing appeal for failure to bring legal representatives on record.Analysis:The High Court received a petition from the Revenue seeking a review of an order dated 16.09.2011 that dismissed an appeal due to the failure to bring the legal representatives of the sole respondent on record. The original assessee had passed away, and the legal representatives were not properly brought into the proceedings. The Revenue had moved an application for substitution of legal representatives, but due to defaults and non-compliance, the appeal was dismissed as abated. The Court, upon review, found errors in the order and decided to recall it.The background of the case involved proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where notices were allegedly not issued to all legal representatives of the deceased assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had earlier annulled the assessment due to lack of notice to all legal representatives. The Revenue appealed to the High Court, raising substantial questions of law regarding the validity of initiating proceedings without serving all legal representatives.The Court found that the order dismissing the appeal for abatement overlooked the fact that the Revenue had indeed moved an application for substitution of legal representatives. The Court noted that the appeal could not be considered as abated, and errors in the observations made in the order were apparent. The Court allowed the review petition, recalled the order dated 16.09.2011, and restored the appeal. The proposed legal representatives were considered as having been served, and further processing of the appeal would depend on the decision regarding the substitution of legal representatives.In conclusion, the Court reviewed the order dismissing the appeal for failure to bring legal representatives on record, found errors in the observations made, and decided to recall the order. The case highlights the importance of proper procedures in bringing legal representatives into proceedings and ensuring compliance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
