TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aneous Application Nos. 405, 406, 407, 408 and 409/Ahd/2009 and seeks restoration of the appeals being I. T. A. Nos. 3394, 3395, 3396, 3397 and 3398/Ahd/2008 preferred by the petitioner to the file of the Tribunal. Assessments had been framed in the case of the petitioner for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2005-06 under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The petitioner preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide consolidated order dated March 13, 2008 dismissed the appeals. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) came to be served on the petitioner on July 2, 2008. The petitioner preferred separate appeals before the Tribunal on October 13, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....009 the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals preferred by the petitioner on the ground that no sufficient cause for condoning the delay had been shown by the petitioner. On receiving the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 405, 406, 407, 408 and 409/Ahd/2009 on November 10, 2009 in all the appeals being I. T. A. Nos. 3394, 3395, 3396, 3397 and 3398/Ahd/2008 respectively, under section 254(2) of the Act before the Tribunal for setting aside the ex parte order dated October 26, 2009. The petitioner's chartered accountant Mr. Mukund Bakshi also filed an affidavit in support of the applications wherein a detailed explanation for the delay was given. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submit that no sufficient cause has been made out on the part of the petitioner and as such the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the applications.The Tribunal in the impugned order has held thus : "5. On consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, we are of the view that there is no mistake apparent on record. The record reveals that the assessee filed application for taking up the appeals at Baroda camp. In the application it was mentioned that the next date of hearing is October 26, 2009. It would show that the assessee was aware of the next date of hearing fixed for hearing of the appeals. This application was rejected by the hon'ble Vice President. The record further reveals that prior to that the assessee was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., there is no mistake apparent on record. All the miscellaneous applications are accordingly dismissed." Before adverting to the facts of the case, it may be pertinent to refer to the provisions of rule 24 of the Rules which read thus : "24. Hearing of appeal ex parte for default of the appellant. Where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent : Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are not considerations which have any relevance to an application under rule 24 of the Rules. On a plain reading of the provisions of rule 24 of the Rules it is apparent that while considering an application made thereunder, all that is required is that the Tribunal should be satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance on the part of the appellant when the appeals were called out for hearing. If it is so satisfied, the Tribunal is required to make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeals. In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the Tribunal, instead of examining the issue from the angle as to whether there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the appellant when the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s at the camp at Baroda had escaped the attention of the Tribunal, which is apparent from the fact that there is no reference to the same in the order dated October 26, 2009 made by the Tribunal. In the impugned order made subsequently the Tribunal has recorded that the said application was rejected by the Vice President. However, it appears that the petitioner was never intimated about the rejection of his application. Thus, when the petitioner had made application for taking up the matter at the camp to be held at Baroda, it is apparent that the petitioner was entertaining a bona fide belief that his matter would be taken up at the Baroda camp. In the circumstances, it is apparent that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance on the ....