Appellant's Application to Recall Order Dismissed for Non-Appearance

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's Miscellaneous Application seeking to recall the order passed in ITA No. 77/AHD/2011 due to non-receipt of the hearing notice. The Tribunal found that notices were properly served at the appellant's address, with acknowledgment received, and concluded that there was no valid reason for non-appearance during the hearing. As per Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the Tribunal upheld its original order passed on merits, stating that the proviso to Rule 24 did not apply in this case.

---

---

Issues: Appeal for recalling order due to non-receipt of hearing notice, Tribunal's power to review its order, application under Section 254(2) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) requesting the Tribunal to recall the order passed in ITA No. 77/AHD/2011 on 07.11.2014, citing non-appearance during the hearing due to non-receipt of the hearing notice. The appellant had moved an application u/s. 154 before the CIT(A) against their order, which was rectified, and the Department had appealed against the rectified order. The appellant argued for the order's recall under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Department opposed, stating the Tribunal cannot review its order.

2. The Tribunal examined the submissions and evidence. It noted that on 09.06.2014, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant during the hearing. The appellant claimed non-receipt of the hearing notice, but the record showed notices were served through RPAD at the given address, with acknowledgment bearing the recipient's signature and mobile number. The Tribunal sent the order to the same address as the notices. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's claim of non-receipt of notice, especially when the order was received at the same address. Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 allows disposal of appeals on merits when the appellant fails to appear. Since no valid reason for non-appearance was presented, the Tribunal concluded that the proviso to Rule 24 would not apply, and there was no basis to recall the order dated 07/11/2014.

3. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, upholding the order passed on merits. The decision was pronounced in Open Court on 19 - 02 - 2015.

---