2021 (4) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it petitioner in ITA No. 3844/DEL/2013 for Assessment Year 2008-09; as well as, (b) the order dated 10th December, 2015 of dismissal of ITA No. 3844/DEL/2013; and, seeks adjudication on merits of ITA No. 3844/DEL/2013. 2. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice. 3. Considering the nature of the controversy, the need to call for a counter affidavit is not felt. 4. The petitioner preferred ITA No. 3844/DEL/2013 aforesaid before the ITAT, for Assessment Year 2008-09. However the petitioner failed to appear, when the said appeal was listed on 9th December, 2015 and the ITAT, vide impugned order dated 10th December, 2015, recording that on earlier occasion also when the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....015; (vii) that under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has time period of four years to apply for restoration of the appeal, on providing sufficient reasons for non-appearance; (viii) however Section 254(2) had been amended with effect from 1st June, 2016 and after amendment, any miscellaneous application had to be filed within six months from the date of the order; (ix) though as on the date of the order dated 10th December, 2015, the petitioner had time period of four years to file an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, for restoration of the appeal, however vide amendment w.e.f 1st June, 2016, the said period of four years was reduced to six months; and, (x) thus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t present at the time when the appeal was disposed of, to apply to the ITAT for setting aside of the ex parte order and for restoring the appeal for hearing. 9. In the present case, admittedly, there is no adjudication by the ITAT on merits. In our opinion, the order dated 10th December, 2015 of the ITAT, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner for non-prosecution and not on merits, as the ITAT was required to do notwithstanding the non-appearance of the petitioner when the appeal was called for hearing, is violative of Rule 24 supra and thus void. Though the petitioner applied as aforesaid to the ITAT, not once but twice, for hearing of his appeal on merits but the ITAT refused to correct the illegality committed. In the circumstances, ....