Appeal challenging ITAT's default dismissal denied, statutory remedy available for restoration without time limit

The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal in default. The Court emphasized the availability of a statutory remedy under Rule 24 for restoration of appeals dismissed for non-prosecution, granting the appellant liberty to file an application for restoration without a prescribed limitation period.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal in default; Interpretation of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 regarding deciding appeals on merits; Statutory remedy for restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution without prescribed limitation period.

The High Court heard an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the appeal in default. The appellant sought to set aside the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the appellate authority was required to decide the appeal on merits as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The appellant relied on a judgment from the Delhi High Court to support her contentions.

During the proceedings, the respondent's counsel pointed out that the appellant had a statutory remedy under Rule 24 proviso to approach the Tribunal for restoration of the dismissed appeal due to non-prosecution. The respondent referred to a judgment from the Delhi High Court where the appellant was directed to file an application for restoration of the appeal. After hearing both parties and examining the record, the Court concluded that the appellant indeed had the statutory remedy to file an application for restoration without a prescribed limitation period under Rule 24 of the Rules.

The High Court found the present appeal to be misconceived and dismissed it accordingly. However, the appellant was granted liberty to file an application for restoration of the appeal that was dismissed in default by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the appellant could pursue the restoration process as advised, highlighting the availability of the statutory remedy under Rule 24 for such situations where appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.

---