2020 (7) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see though assessee had moved an application for adjournment. The tribunal we note has observed that none appeared for the assessee and the Tribunal at para 2 has observed as under: "2. These appeals were fixed for hearing on 19.2.2018, when one Sri Brajesh Sharma, claiming as Ld. AR of the assessee had filed adjournment petition and requested time on 21.2.2018 to argue the appeals. The request of Ld. AR to adjourn the appeals was granted and appeals were fixed for hearing for 21.2.2018. On 21.2.2018 an application for adjournment was received from another person Shri Somnath Ghosh claiming to be Ld. AR of the Assessee. There is no Vakalatnama in the name of Shri Somnath Ghosh filed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the adjournment a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated that he had authorized Shri Somnath Ghosh to appear before the Tribunal on 21.02.2018 and instructed to seek adjournment, since Shri Somnath Ghosh was newly engaged as AR and so he needed to be briefed about the case/appeal. It was also admitted by Shri Varun More, director of the assessee company that it omitted to file before the Tribunal the Vakalatnama of Shri Somnath Ghosh and the Tribunal citing this technical omission did not accept the adjournment application moved by the assessee. Therefore, it was prayed that in the interest of justice the impugned order passed by the Tribunal without hearing the assessee should be re called. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and have gone through the records. We note that the Tribunal had fixed....