2006 (4) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the first respondent and consequently direct the first respondent to hear  the appeals  in  I.T.A.T. Nos.328,323,324/MDS/2000,  by giving opportunity to the Petitioners. 3. The short facts that are necessary for the final disposal of the writ Petitions are as follows :- 4. The appeals filed by the petitioners/appellants in the above writ petitions in I.T.A.T.Nos.328,323,324/MDS/2000 were posted for final hearing before the first respondent Tribunal on June 21, 2005.  The authorized representative/advocate of the  petitioners  by  letter  dated  June 20, 2005, addressed  to  the  Deputy  Registrar, Appellate Tribunal Income Tax, Chennai, sought for adjournment on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; 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." 6. Relying  upon  the  said  Proviso  to  Rule  24, the learned counsel submitted that even though the Tribunal may dispose of the  appeal  on  merits exparte,  when  the  appellants appear afterward and satisfy the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for their non appearance when the appeal was called for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte  order and restoring   the  appeal.    According&nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r  the non-appearance of the appellants or their  authorized  representative,  the  Tribunal  shall,  on  a consideration  of  the cause shown, set aside the ex parte order, restoring the appeal and hear it on merits. 9. In my considered view, the Tribunal has not applied its judicial mind to the facts of this case.  Admittedly, the authorized representative of the appellants has submitted a letter seeking for adjournment, in time.   When the  proviso  to  Rule  24  only  speaks  of reasonable cause being shown, the Tribunal should have considered the reasonable cause, instead  of  considering the merits  of  the case.&....