1986 (10) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs which were disposed of by a common order by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeals were dismissed with some modifications inasmuch as the total income for the assessment year 1970-71 was reduced by Rs. 1,000 and for the subsequent assessment year 1971-72, expenses were allowed at Rs. 12,000 instead of Rs. 5,800 allowed by the Income-tax Officer. Thus, a further relief of Rs. 6,200 was allowed to the assessee for the second assessment year. The assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. On the date fixed for hearing, i.e., April 11, 1975, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal heard the departmental representative and disposed of the appeals on merits. Whereas for the assessment year 1970-71 expenses had been ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7, 1986, and February 28, 1986, this court called for a supplementary statement of facts. That having been received, the case was again listed for hearing. From the statement of the case, original and supplementary, the comprehensive facts are that the assessee filed appeals on December 7, 1973. On March 13, 1975, the Tribunal fixed April 10, 1975, for final bearing. Notice of hearing was issued and served upon the assessee and the Revenue. On April 7, 1975, the assessee filed a petition in the office for adjournment. The office put up a note for necessary order by the members. On April 9, 1975, the members ordered that the petition for adjournment be put up in court. On April 10, 1975, the judicial member and the accountant member made an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udicial authority has some incidental power to do justice between the parties and, therefore, when the Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee did not have reasonable opportunity of presenting her case, the Tribunal was justified in recalling the final order in order to rehear the appeals afresh. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the decisions in the cases of Murlidhar Sarda v. ITAT [1973] 92 ITR 189 (Cal), ITO v. Murlidhar Sarda [1975] 99 ITR 485 (Cal) and CIT v. ITAT [1979] 120 ITR 231 (Ker). Learned senior standing counsel, Income-tax, on the other hand, placed reliance upon a single judge decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shew Paper Exchange v. ITO [1974] 93 ITR 186. It is well established that the Income-ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for default." Rule 24 as it now stands under the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, reads as under: " 24. Dismissal of appeal for appellant's default, etc.-Where on the day fixed for hearing or any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or may hear it ex parte: Provided that where the appeal has been dismissed for default and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an ....