Writ interference with refusal to restore an appeal was declined where the Tribunal gave cogent reasons and found no legal error.

Interference under Article 226 was unwarranted where the Tribunal had decided the income-tax appeal on merits after non-appearance by the assessee and later refused to restore the matter. The High Court found the Tribunal's reasons for rejecting the adjournment and restoration request to be relevant and cogent, and treated the restoration plea as an invocation of discretionary inherent jurisdiction. In the absence of any manifest error of law, the refusal to restore the appeal was upheld and writ interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the Tribunal's refusal to restore the appeal filed against the income-tax assessment order.

Analysis: The Tribunal had proceeded to hear and decide the appeal on merits after no one appeared for the assessee. The later request for adjournment and the application for setting aside the order were rejected. The High Court held that the reasons recorded by the Tribunal were relevant and cogent, and that the assessee had invoked only the Tribunal's inherent jurisdiction, which is discretionary in nature. In the absence of any manifest error of law in the refusal to restore the case, interference under writ jurisdiction was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The refusal to restore the appeal was upheld and no interference under Article 226 was justified.

---