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

....tead of "Raheja Chambers". Both buildings 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 the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alleged mistake as such they could not be allowed 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 e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue to any fault of his, then unawareness would be sufficient cause which would prevent a party from appearing in the court. The approach of the Tribunal should have been a little liberal with a view to advance the cause of justice. Keeping in view the principles laid down by this court, we find that the petitioners had shown sufficient cause to the Tribunal for setting aside the ex parte order in question. The Tribunal itself ought to have allowed the application and should have granted an opportunity of rehearing to the petitioners. In this view of the matter, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated August 8, 2001, passed by the Tribunal and allow this petition for the reasons mentioned herein and as a consequence of this order, we....