TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., dated 21/03/2017. 2. By filing an application under Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that on the date of hearing on 21/03/2017, the counsel for the assessee filed an application dated 16/03/2017 for adjournment by stating that he would not be able to attend the hearing on 21/03/2017 due to heavy work pressure in Income Tax Department. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that due to non-appearance of the counsel, assessee should not suffer and submit that exparte order dated 21/03/2017 may be recalled. The ld. counsel for the assessee Mr. Hari further submitted that the counsel, who filed Vakalatnama earlier and sought adjournment, has been changed. Now, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee, we are of the opinion that there is a sufficient cause for not to appear in this appeal when it was posed. We also find that the Misc. Application filed by the assessee is after 98 days of passing of the exparte order, is a reasonable period, in which the assessee approach the Tribunal. In our opinion, this being an exparte order, assessee should be given opportunity and the order has to be passed on the merits of the case. In this case, no merits have been considered, simply dismissed the appeal. In our opinion, not only in the interest of justice and also on the grounds of principles of natural justice, these appeals deserve to be recalled. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Om Prakash Sangwan (supra) has held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi High Court in the case of Om Prakash Sangwan (supra) is extracted verbatim as under:- "1. Mr. Ashok Manchanda, counsel for respondent accepts notice. With the consent of the parties, the appeals were heard finally. The appellant's grievance is that the ITAT vide its impugned order rejected the rectification application. The ITAT's order dismissing the appeal was dated 16-06-2016; however, the appellant moved under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by an application on 02-6-2017 which was dismissed by the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to impress upon the Court that the period mentioned in Section 254(2) of the Act only applied when the Tribunal not....