2003 (8) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are located in the same area known as Nariman Point, Mumbai--400 021. It appears that a typographical error had crept in Form No. 36. It was a mistake committed by the typist while typing Form No. 36. This has resulted in non-receipt of notice of hearing of appeal issued by the Tribunal, with the result, the petitioners could not appear before the Tribunal when the appeal was called out for final hearing. The Tribunal heard the appeal ex parte. The appeal came to be dismissed on the merits by a reasoned judgment and order dated August 8, 2001. The petitioners herein (appellant before the Tribunal) came to know about the adverse order, when the copy of the judgment of the Tribunal was received by them. It appears that the office of the Tri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lowed to take advantage of their own mistake. The Tribunal, thus rejected the application moved by the petitioners. This order of the Tribunal dated March 8, 2001, is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. J.D. Mistry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to our notice rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for short), which specifically lays down that if the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall set aside the ex parte order and restore the appeal. This pro....