TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (4) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its and finding no case for the assessee, dismissed the appeal. The miscellaneous application has been filed against the aforesaid order, seeking restoration of the appeal. We have gone through the contents of the miscellaneous application and we have also heard the rival contentions. It is stated in the miscellaneous application that Mr. Ruvala was out of India between 21-5-1998 and 17-7-1998. We have verified his passport which was produced before us and we find the averment to be true. On the facts and circumstances of present case, we are satisfied that the assessee had been prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause and had no opportunity of being heard. We therefore recall our order dated 20th July, 1998 and restore the appeal for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant Registrar wherein it has the stated as under : "As our person has appeared in your office on 10-7-1998 with application for fresh date, but as you were on leave therefore Your person has not accepted our application for fresh date. Again on 13-7-1998 our person has appeared with the same publication for fresh date, at 10.20 a.m. but your person has not accepted the same as the appeal is about to be placed on the table for hearing within a few minutes on 13-7-1998. Mr. Rajan A. Ruvala is out of India and is expected on 20-7-1998, therefore we bequest you to give in fresh date for hearing after 20-7-1998." The original of the letter has again been taken by us on record. A reading of the aforesaid letter further shows that on the dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9th July, 1998, four days before the date of hearing. Mr. Sonde at this juncture stated that generally difficulties arc felt because letters such as adjournment letters are not accepted even when they are filed days ahead of the date of hearing. While we confess that we do not know about what is happening generally in the office in such matters, atleast in this case there is evidence to show that application for adjournment dated 9th July, 1998 has not been accepted by the office of the Tribunal. This is quite unfortunate. The Registry should not refuse to accept such letters or tapals when they are filed much ahead of the date of hearing of the matter. They have to assist the public to the best of their ability and guide them properly in ....