2024 (12) TMI 664 - AT - Wealth-tax

ITAT recalls ex parte wealth tax orders after representative's death created compelling circumstances under Rule 24

Smt. Shanti Tripathi, Representative Assessee of Dr. Nidhi Raman (Gayner) Versus Wealth Tax Officer, Range-1 (3), Allahabad

Smt. Shanti Tripathi, Representative Assessee of Dr. Nidhi Raman (Gayner) Versus Wealth Tax Officer, Range-1 (3), Allahabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Restoration of dismissed appeals for non-prosecution.2. Validity of ex parte dismissal without decision on merits.3. Timeliness and admissibility of miscellaneous applications.4. Transfer of appeals to a different bench due to representative's inability to attend.5. Application of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.Detailed Analysis:1. Restoration of Dismissed Appeals for Non-Prosecution:The primary issue was the assessee's appeal in WTA Nos. 01 to 05/Alld/2010, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of representation at the hearing scheduled on 16.05.2011. The assessee's counsel had submitted an adjournment application citing personal reasons (a family marriage), which was not considered, leading to the dismissal. The assessee argued that this dismissal was an apparent mistake and sought restoration of the appeal, emphasizing that the case was not decided on its merits.2. Validity of Ex Parte Dismissal Without Decision on Merits:The judgment addressed the procedural lapse where the ITAT dismissed the appeal ex parte without considering the merits, contrary to Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. It was noted that an appeal must be decided on merits even if the assessee is absent, and the Tribunal should recall an ex parte order if the assessee shows reasonable cause for non-appearance. The Tribunal found that the original dismissal did not comply with these requirements.3. Timeliness and Admissibility of Miscellaneous Applications:The Revenue argued that the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee were time-barred under section 254(2), which stipulates a six-month limitation period. However, the Tribunal clarified that the applications were not for rectification under section 254(2) but for recalling an ex parte order under Rule 24, which does not prescribe a limitation period. The Tribunal cited precedents to support this distinction and admitted the applications.4. Transfer of Appeals to a Different Bench:The assessee requested the transfer of appeals from the Allahabad Bench to the Lucknow Bench, citing the representative's inability to attend hearings in Allahabad due to her age and health. The Tribunal acknowledged the practical difficulties faced by the super senior citizen representative and noted the consistent efforts to seek transfer. Although the initial requests were not granted due to procedural reasons, the Tribunal recognized the merit in considering such a transfer for effective representation.5. Application of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963:The Tribunal emphasized the importance of Rule 24, which mandates that appeals be decided on merits even in the absence of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the original dismissal did not adhere to this rule, as it was based solely on non-appearance without evaluating the case's merits. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to recall the ex parte order and restore the appeals to their original position, allowing for a fresh hearing on merits.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's applications, recalling the ex parte orders and restoring the appeals for a hearing on merits, thereby ensuring compliance with procedural fairness and justice.