https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239015 The dominant issue was whether an ex parte ITAT order could be recalled under s. 254(2) despite the four-year limitation. The Tribunal construed "date of the order" in s. 254(2) as the date of receipt/communication to the party, and held the miscellaneous application was within time. On merits of recall, applying principles of natural justice and the precedent on restoration where an appeal was dismissed ex parte without adjudication, it found sufficient cause for non-appearance and treated the non-hearing as a mistake warranting rectification. The ex parte order was recalled, the appeal was directed to be fixed for out-of-turn hearing within three months, and notice was to issue at the updated address. en-us Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239015 The dominant issue was whether an ex parte ITAT order could be recalled under s. 254(2) despite the four-year limitation. The Tribunal construed "date of the order" in s. 254(2) as the date of receipt/communication to the party, and held the miscellaneous application was within time. On merits of recall, applying principles of natural justice and the precedent on restoration where an appeal was dismissed ex parte without adjudication, it found sufficient cause for non-appearance and treated the non-hearing as a mistake warranting rectification. The ex parte order was recalled, the appeal was directed to be fixed for out-of-turn hearing within three months, and notice was to issue at the updated address. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239015