Tribunal delay condonation limits bar section 254(2) relief, while Rule 24 requires sufficient cause for non-appearance.

In section 254(2) proceedings, the Tribunal held that the miscellaneous applications were time-barred and, in the absence of express statutory power, delay could not be condoned. It also held that Rule 24 relief was unavailable because sufficient cause for non-appearance had not been shown, as the earlier order had already recorded the absence of reasonable cause. The Tribunal further found that the fresh applications were, in substance, an impermissible attempt to review its earlier order, and reiterated that it has no power to review absent statutory authority. The applications were therefore not maintainable and no recall of the ex parte order was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the miscellaneous applications, if treated as petitions under section 254(2), were barred by limitation and could be entertained despite delay; (ii) whether the applications could be treated as applications under Rule 24 and whether sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance so as to set aside the ex parte order; (iii) whether the present applications were in substance an impermissible attempt to review the earlier order and were therefore not maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the miscellaneous applications, if treated as petitions under section 254(2), were barred by limitation and could be entertained despite delay.

Analysis: The applications were filed invoking section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that they were beyond limitation and noted that, in the absence of express statutory power, it had no authority to condone delay in filing such petitions.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the applications could be treated as applications under Rule 24 and whether sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance so as to set aside the ex parte order.

Analysis: Rule 24 permits setting aside an ex parte order only where sufficient cause for non-appearance is established. The Tribunal found that the earlier order had already recorded that no reasonable cause for non-appearance was shown, and the present request for adjournment was declined.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the present applications were in substance an impermissible attempt to review the earlier order and were therefore not maintainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the same cause had already been dealt with in the earlier miscellaneous applications and that the present proceedings were effectively seeking review of that order. It reiterated that, absent express statutory authority, the Tribunal has no power to review its own order.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous applications were not maintainable and the assessee obtained no relief; the Tribunal declined to recall the ex parte order or disturb the earlier dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of express statutory power, the Tribunal cannot condone delay in section 254(2) proceedings or review its own order, and relief under Rule 24 requires proof of sufficient cause for non-appearance.

---