https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198014 A Tribunal majority treated the miscellaneous application as one seeking recall of an ex parte order under Rule 25 of the ITAT Rules, holding that wrong noting of the hearing date, supported by the chartered accountant's affidavit and diary entry, constituted sufficient cause for non-appearance. It further held that the respondent was entitled to a hearing and that recall in these circumstances would not amount to an impermissible review. The ex parte order was therefore recalled and the application allowed. A dissenting Member viewed the application as not disclosing any mistake apparent from the record under section 254(2) and considered recall to be a prohibited review. en-us Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jan 2018 17:14:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198014 A Tribunal majority treated the miscellaneous application as one seeking recall of an ex parte order under Rule 25 of the ITAT Rules, holding that wrong noting of the hearing date, supported by the chartered accountant's affidavit and diary entry, constituted sufficient cause for non-appearance. It further held that the respondent was entitled to a hearing and that recall in these circumstances would not amount to an impermissible review. The ex parte order was therefore recalled and the application allowed. A dissenting Member viewed the application as not disclosing any mistake apparent from the record under section 254(2) and considered recall to be a prohibited review. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198014