Rule 24 recall of ex parte appellate order granted after sufficient cause for non-appearance and natural justice concerns.

The Tribunal rejected the limitation objection because the miscellaneous applications were filed within time, and the earlier consolidated application had already been pursued with liberty to file separate applications for each assessment year. It also held that Rule 24 required recall of the ex parte appellate order because sufficient cause for non-appearance was shown through the medical certificate and adjournment request on health grounds. The order was treated as having been passed without effective hearing, so the appeals were restored for hearing on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Miscellaneous Applications were barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the ex parte appellate order deserved to be recalled under Rule 24 on the ground of sufficient cause for non-appearance.

Issue (i): Whether the Miscellaneous Applications were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The filing chronology showed that the Miscellaneous Applications were moved within the stipulated time. The Tribunal accepted the explanation that the earlier consolidated application had already been pursued and liberty had been granted to file separate applications for each assessment year. On that basis, the alleged delay was not treated as fatal.

Conclusion: The objection of limitation was rejected, and the applications were admitted for adjudication.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte appellate order deserved to be recalled under Rule 24 on the ground of sufficient cause for non-appearance.

Analysis: Rule 24 empowers the Tribunal to dispose of an appeal ex parte when the appellant does not appear and also obliges the Tribunal to set aside such an order if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown. The material placed on record, including the medical certificate and the adjournment request on health grounds, was accepted as demonstrating sufficient cause. The order was therefore viewed as having been passed without affording effective hearing, warranting recall in accordance with the rule and the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The ex parte order was recalled and the appeals were directed to be restored for hearing.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal granted restoration of the appeals by accepting the assessee's explanation for non-appearance and by treating the recall application as maintainable and justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Where sufficient cause for non-appearance is established, Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 obliges the Tribunal to set aside an ex parte order and restore the appeal for hearing on merits.

---