TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 844
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'D' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.2217 & 2218/Chny/2019 for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively. The assessee has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration: "1.Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was right in refusing to condone the delay of 317 days, without considering the restoration application filed by the Appellant before CIT(A) was duly acknowledged by CIT(A). 2. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was right in observing that there is no merits in the grounds of appeal, where in fact there was neither any submissions made in respect to the merits of the case nor any observation was made in the Order of Hon'ble ITAT pertaining to the merits of the dispute." 2. We have elab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on 16.07.2018 and the assessee could not make any alternate arrangements. Thus, the assessee pleaded that the circumstance cited by them was beyond control and prayed before the CIT(A) that the order dated 29.06.2018, dismissing the appeals for default may be revoked and appeals be restored to the file for being heard and disposed. To substantiate the cause shown by the assessee, the copy of the wedding invitation of the marriage of the daughter of the assessee's Chartered Accountant was enclosed. The assessee would submit that the said application was presented in the office of the CIT(A) on 06.08.2018 and an acknowledgment has also been given by the office of the CIT(A). However, the application was not taken up for consideration an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reason that the CIT(A) might had doubt in his mind as to whether he would be entitled to recall and review the earlier order and restore the appeals and hear the same afresh. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Meerut Vs. Smt.Madhu, in the case of Income Tax Appeal Defective No.93 of 2014 dated 28.10.2014. 5. The Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration in the said case was whether the Tribunal erred in law in granting the CIT(A), the power of review when none is provided by the legislature and more so, owing to the fact that the power of review is the specific statutory power, which may not be interfered wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, the assessee had not appeared in support of the appeal. While restoring the appeal to file and recalling the order of dismissal, the CIT (A) took due note of the submission of the assessee that on most of the dates, either the CIT (A) had been transferred or was not present at the hearing of the appeal. The CIT (A) restored the appeal to file evidently in order to afford a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. However, inexplicably, he proceeded to recall the order of restoration. In the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 606, the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with a similar issue. Under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hearing on merits. This is not equivalent to the power of review. The CIT (A) has not exercised the power of review but has only exercised the inherent power in the interests of justice of restoring the appeal which had been dismissed for want of prosecution. That order of restoration was not contrary to law and the CIT (A) was, hence, found by the Tribunal to have erred in subsequently recalling his order of restoration. The appeal after being restored to file was being heard on merits, as observed by the Tribunal, and no prejudice as such has been sustained by the Revenue, since both the sides would be heard by the CIT (Appeals) before any final orders are passed. In this view of the matter, the appeal will not give rise to any ....