Writ petition challenging Tribunal's order on Wealth-tax Appeals dismissed. Notice delivery confirmed, no denial of opportunity.

The writ petition challenging the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding Wealth-tax Appeals was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the ex parte order was supported by the postal department's confirmation of notice delivery, indicating no denial of opportunity to be heard. The petitioner's argument of non-receipt of adjourned hearing notice was countered by the Tribunal's compliance with notification rules. The petition lacked merit, leading to its dismissal, with the Tribunal emphasizing the petitioner's failure to demonstrate a denial of reasonable opportunity to participate. The maintainability objection was not addressed due to the dismissal on merit.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Non-receipt of notice for adjourned hearing, Dismissal of miscellaneous application, Compliance with rules for notification of hearing, Power of Tribunal to set aside ex parte order, Denial of reasonable opportunity to participate, Certification of postal department for notice delivery, Opportunity for parties to be heard, Maintainability of writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 23, 2001, in relation to Wealth-tax Appeals for various assessment years. The petitioner contended non-receipt of notice for the adjourned hearing, leading to an ex parte order. A miscellaneous application was filed under section 24(5) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, seeking to set aside the ex parte order due to lack of opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal dismissed the application citing service confirmation by postal authorities and the opportunity to present before the Assessing Officer post remand.

The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's duty to notify the hearing date was not fulfilled as the adjourned date notice was not received. Reference was made to the Allahabad High Court's decision emphasizing the necessity of notifying adjourned hearing dates for a fair hearing. The respondent contended that the postal department confirmed notice delivery, indicating no denial of opportunity. The judge analyzed Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, highlighting the distinction between the first notice and adjourned hearing notice requirements.

The Tribunal's power to dispose of appeals ex parte and set aside such orders was discussed under rule 24 of the Rules. The Tribunal declined to exercise this power based on the postal department's certification of notice delivery. It was noted that the Tribunal took necessary steps to ensure the petitioner's opportunity to be heard. The judgment also addressed the maintainability of the writ petition under section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, stating that dismissal on merits rendered the objection regarding alternative remedy irrelevant.

In conclusion, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, with any interim order being vacated. The judgment emphasized the Tribunal's compliance with notification rules and the petitioner's failure to establish a denial of reasonable opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The maintainability objection was not addressed due to the dismissal on merit.

---