TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for assessment year 1998-99. These appeals were legally competent and they were consolidated. Then they were required to be decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law on merits. Instead of relying on the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320, the Tribunal chose to dismiss the same summarily for want of prosecution. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Ranjan appear ing for the appellant has fervently submitted before this Court that the order of the Tribunal is patently erroneous and in post 1987 period, the amendment in Rule 24 makes it incumbunt upon the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. He further urged that even in the absence of the appellant, the Tribunal cannot dismiss the appeal for default in prosecution. He also submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal though is passed on 4.8.2006, these appeals are preferred on 10.2.2012, as the order impugned was never served upon the appellant. Only on obtaining a copy of the said order on 12.12.2011, the present appeal came to be filed. He has taken us to the paper book indicating the communication addressed to the Tribunal. He sought to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ahmedabad the appeals were shown to have been transferred to Ahmedabad, which reached the Registry on 12.6.2006. Accordingly, the matter was requested to be fixed on 26.10.2010 with a further request to tag those later years' appeals with the earlier appeals of Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 14. Letter from Assistant Registrar to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax dated 9.8.2005 is indicative of transfer of ITA NO.2962 and 2963 for the assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively in the case of the present appellant to the Ahmedabad Bench. 15. Request for clubbing appeals on 27.10.2010 addressed to Vice-President also reiterates these facts. It appears from the communication dated 23.9.2011 addressed to the Assistant Registrar by the present appellant that oblivious of such transfer and dismisal in limine the appellants' case for the assessment year 2001-02, 2002-03 had been fixed for hearing on 3.11.2011. Both the appeals No.2962 and 2963, which were transferred from Mumbai were already decided on 4.8.2006. Copy of the order since was not available, this appeal could not be filed earlier. It appears that the copies had been supplied to the appellant in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an that the appeal has been admitted. ** ** ** Rule 20. In an appeal under sub-section(1) of Section 253, in fixing the date for the respondent to appear and answer to the appeal, a reasonable time shall be allowed for the necessary communication with the Commissioner through the proper channel and for the issue of instructions to an authorised representative to appear and answer on behalf of the respondent. 1** ** ** Rule 24. Where, on the day fixed for hearing or any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorized representative when the appeal is 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 Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal." 19. The Apex Court in the case of S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (supra), prior to the amendment of Rule 24 (1946 Rules) was deciding this very question as to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d misapplied rules 19 and 20 of the Rules of 1963, in holding that the assessee's appeal was not maintainable. If for any reason, the assessee was not being represented on the date of hearing, the Tribunal could have proceeded for hearing of the appeal ex parte provided in rule 24 but that was not done. The appeal has not been heard on the merits and the Tribunal erroneously held that the assessee's appeal is not maintainable in law." 22. In the case of Anil Kumar Agrahari (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court was examining the dismissal for non-prosecution of appeal by the Tribunal and it held categorically that the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case, by rejecting the adjournment application filed by the counsel. And, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. It also took note of decision rendered in Rajendra Prasad Borah (supra) as also the decision rendered by the Apex Court in S. Chenniappa MudaliarI (supra) so also the decision of the Tribhuwan kumar ( supra), and held that the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal without adverting to the merits of the case and on the line of t....