Recall under Rule 24 fails absent valid authorisation and sufficient cause for non-appearance in Tribunal proceedings.

Miscellaneous applications seeking recall of an earlier Tribunal order were rejected because the adjournment request was not validly made through an authorised representative, and the power of attorney on record was not valid for the appeals and connected petitions. The Tribunal held that Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 requires sufficient and reasonable cause for non-appearance, which the assessee failed to establish. It also noted that the underlying disputes involved bogus accommodation loans and that no useful purpose would be served by reopening the matter. The recall request was therefore declined and the miscellaneous applications failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous applications seeking recall of the Tribunal's earlier order were maintainable in the absence of valid authority and sufficient cause for non-appearance.

Analysis: The applications were rejected because the adjournment request had not been validly moved in the name of the authorised representative, and the power of attorney placed on record was not valid for the appeals and connected miscellaneous petitions. The assessee failed to satisfy the requirement of sufficient and reasonable cause for non-appearance, as contemplated by Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Tribunal also noted that the underlying appeals concerned bogus accommodation loans and that no useful purpose would be served by recalling the matter.

Conclusion: The request for recall was rejected and the miscellaneous applications failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to reopen the earlier order and dismissed all the miscellaneous applications.

Ratio Decidendi: Recall under Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is not warranted unless sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown and the authorisation to act is valid in law.

---