TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 999
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of certiorari to quash and set aside the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Case No.M.A No.157/2017 arising out of ITA No.1263/2011, which is annexed at Annexure A to this petition in the interest of justice. (B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction, order in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the ITA No.1263 of 2011 which is annexed at Annexure B to this petition and further to restore the appeal to the file of the Tribunal in the interest of justice. (C) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Hon;ble Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Application dated 22.05.2017 beyond the time limit prescribed in the Act. After considering the above facts and the clear provision of section 254(2) of the Act we do not find any merit in the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the above cited Miscellaneous Application. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee stands dismissed." 3. Thus, it appears that the order, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, was passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 12.12.2014, whereas the Miscellaneous Application was filed on 23rd May, 2017. The Appellate Tribunal took the view that with effect from 1st June, 2016, the period of limitation, during which the rectification application can be filed, is six months. Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he matter is from Ahmedabad." 3. Mr.M.R.Bhatt, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs.Mauna M. Bhatt, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 4. Mr. Bhatt with his usual fairness has pointed out two important aspects of the matter. According to Mr. Bhatt, even otherwise, the Appellate Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. On the issue of limitation also, we have the able assistance of Mr. Bhatt. Mr. Bhatt has fairly submitted that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable in law. Mr. Bhatt brought to our notice the decision of this High Court in the case of Sanket Estate & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [Tax Appeal No.133/2012 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... through the proper channel and for the issue of instructions to an authorised representative to appear and answer on behalf of the respondent. 1. xxx xxx xxx Rule 24. Where, on the day fixed for hearing or any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorized representative when the appeal is on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent: Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his nonappearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t stands, per se does not empower the learned Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default in the absence of the appellant. The learned Tribunal's reliance on the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, rendered in CIT vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320, is apparently misplaced in the teeth of the decision of the apex court in CIT vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41." 21. In the case of Tribhuwan kumar and others vs. Commisioner of IncomeTax and another (supra), the Rajasthan High Court while interpreting Rules 19,20 and 24 of 1963 Rules also examined the decision of Delhi Bench rendered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 by holding thus:" "6. Having considered the aforesa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision rendered by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. S. Chenniappa MudaliarI(supra) so also the decision of the Tribhuwan kumar and others vs. Commisioner of IncomeTax and another (supra), and held that the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal without adverting to the merits of the case and on the line of the decisions of Gauhati and Rajasthan High Courts, it set aside the order of Tribunal dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. 23. In the instant case, as could be noted from the order impugned, that the Tribunal has chosen to dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution. It also noted that RPAD was sent and the same had returned with the remark of the postal department as none having claimed the s....