Tribunal must set aside ex-parte order when appellant shows sufficient cause for non-appearance under Rule 24

Gujarat HC held that the Tribunal erred in disposing of an appeal ex-parte and rejecting the recall application. Under Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, when an appellant shows sufficient cause for non-appearance, the Tribunal must set aside the ex-parte order. The Tribunal wrongly demanded documentary evidence for the appellant's explanation regarding counsel's unavailability. The HC restored the appeal but imposed Rs. 10,000 costs on the appellant for negligence and multiple non-appearances, to be deposited with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the restored appeal within twelve weeks of deposit.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this appeal arising under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relate primarily to procedural and substantive issues concerning the disposal of the appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The issues presented and considered are:

A. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without hearing the appellant;

B. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in upholding additions and disallowances aggregating to Rs. 2,16,71,436/- on various heads including rent expenses, weigh shortage expenses, shipping freight expenses, excess payment to specified persons, and interest income;

C. Whether the Tribunal's ex-parte disposal and confirmation of the impugned additions and disallowances was perverse or could reasonably be arrived at based on the material on record.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue A: Legality of Ex-parte Disposal by the Tribunal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, governs the hearing of appeals ex-parte for default by the appellant. It authorizes the Tribunal to dispose of an appeal on merits if the appellant fails to appear but mandates that if the appellant subsequently appears and shows sufficient cause for non-appearance, the ex-parte order must be set aside and the appeal restored.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal had disposed of the appeal ex-parte after the appellant failed to appear on thirteen occasions. The Tribunal recorded that the appellant's representative sought adjournments by email but did not provide authorization for representation. The Tribunal also noted the absence of any paper-book or evidence filed by the appellant. However, the Court found that the Tribunal failed in its duty to inform the appellant of the adjournment and the next hearing date (11/04/2023), which resulted in the appellant's absence. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should have ensured the appellant was duly informed and should have considered the appellant's submissions and evidence placed before the CIT (Appeals) before dismissing the appeal ex-parte.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant had filed a Miscellaneous Application for rectification, explaining the non-appearance was due to inability of the authorized representative to brief the senior advocate. The Tribunal rejected this application for lack of documentary evidence, which the Court found to be an unreasonable demand since such factual explanations cannot be supported by documentary proof. The Court held this rejection contrary to Rule 24 of the Tribunal Rules.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that the Tribunal erred in mechanically reiterating the CIT (Appeals) findings without independently examining the appellant's submissions and evidence. It was the Tribunal's duty to call for records and proceedings before passing an ex-parte order, especially when the appellant had produced evidence before the CIT (Appeals).

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that the appellant was habitual in non-appearance and non-cooperation, justifying the ex-parte disposal. The Court acknowledged the appellant's negligence but underscored the Tribunal's obligation to render justice and not punish the appellant by dismissing the appeal without considering the merits.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the Tribunal's ex-parte disposal without proper notice and without considering the appellant's case was unlawful and warranted setting aside.

Issue B: Legality of Additions and Disallowances Upheld by the Tribunal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The additions and disallowances were made under various provisions of the Income Tax Act, including provisions relating to non-deduction of tax at source, payments to specified persons under Section 40A(2)(b), and procedural rules under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The CIT (Appeals) had partly allowed the appeal but upheld certain additions based on the material on record.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal upheld the additions and disallowances on the basis that the appellant failed to produce any new evidence before it. The Tribunal found that the CIT (Appeals) had given ample opportunity to the appellant and had considered the appellant's submissions and documents. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's grounds as general and devoid of merit, noting absence of evidence to contradict the CIT (Appeals) findings.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal specifically addressed each head of disallowance: rent expenses, weigh shortage expenses, shipping freight expenses, excess payments to specified persons, and interest income. It noted the appellant's failure to file evidence or prove that certain parties were covered under relevant provisions. The CIT (Appeals) had also relied on prior and subsequent assessment years to estimate weigh shortage expenses and confirmed the additions due to lack of Form 10E and Form 3CEB for related party transactions.

Application of law to facts: The Court noted that the Tribunal's approach was to reiterate the CIT (Appeals) findings without independent fact-finding or detailed analysis of the appellant's submissions. However, since the appellant did not file new evidence before the Tribunal, the additions stood on the material before the CIT (Appeals).

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant contended that the CIT (Appeals) failed to consider relevant orders in other assessment years and that the Tribunal should have allowed additional evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal and respondent rejected these contentions due to lack of new evidence before the Tribunal and absence of applications for additional evidence.

Conclusion: The Court did not interfere with the Tribunal's findings on the merits of the additions and disallowances, as no substantial question of law arose from these findings. The Court's focus was on the procedural irregularity in ex-parte disposal.

Issue C: Whether the Tribunal's Ex-parte Disposal and Confirmation of Additions was Perverse

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle of natural justice and statutory provisions under Rule 24 of the Tribunal Rules require that an appellant be given a fair opportunity to be heard before dismissal of appeal. The Tribunal's order must be based on material on record and reasonable conclusions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the Tribunal's ex-parte dismissal without notice to the appellant and without independent consideration of the appellant's submissions to be perverse and unjust. The Court held that the Tribunal's mechanical reiteration of the CIT (Appeals) order without examining the appellant's case violated principles of natural justice.

Key evidence and findings: The absence of notice to the appellant for the adjourned hearing date and the Tribunal's refusal to consider the appellant's Miscellaneous Application for recall of the ex-parte order despite sufficient cause were critical findings supporting the conclusion of perversity.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied Rule 24's proviso mandating setting aside of ex-parte orders when sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown. The Tribunal's failure to do so was contrary to law.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's argument of habitual non-appearance was acknowledged but held insufficient to justify denial of hearing and dismissal without considering merits.

Conclusion: The Court found the ex-parte dismissal and confirmation of additions to be perverse and ordered restoration of the appeal with a direction for fresh hearing.

Significant Holdings

"Where the Tribunal is deciding the appeals ex-parte, it is the duty of the Tribunal to render the justice rather than to adopt an approach of punishing the appellant for not remaining present."

"The Tribunal ought to have considered the facts which are placed on record by the appellant before the CIT (Appeals) by calling the record and proceedings from the CIT (Appeals) or the departmental representative ought to have been called upon to place on record the details which are submitted by the appellant before the CIT (Appeals) to adjudicate the grounds raised before the Tribunal."

"As per the proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, when the appeal has been disposed of ex-parte and when the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non appearance and the appeal was called for hearing, the Tribunal is bound to make an order setting aside the ex-parte order by restoring the appeal."

"The Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal ex-parte without notice to the appellant and without considering the appellant's submissions and evidence is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside."

Final determinations:

- The question of law as to the legality of ex-parte disposal was answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue.

- The appeal was restored on condition of payment of costs and the Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal afresh, considering the appellant's evidence and submissions.

- No interference was made with the merits of the additions and disallowances upheld by the CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal, as no substantial question of law arose therefrom.

---