https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468822 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. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 13:18:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468822 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468822