2005 (3) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n an ex parte manner by hearing the Departmental representative only on January 16, 1985, thereby denying the applicant's valuable right of being heard ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the income from property 87, Civil Lines, Bareilly, and the income from furniture hiring, etc., belong to and was assessable in the hands of the applicant-individual and not in the hands of the applicant's HUF particularly when the notary had confirmed the execution of declaration on March 31, 1968, and the Tribunal had in the wealth-tax cases of the applicant also held that the property and the business were the ownership of applicant's HUF ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cant was represented by his counsel Sri Dinesh Kumar Agrawal. However, on January 16, 1985, nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant and the Tribunal heard the Departmental representative on behalf of the Revenue and decided all the appeals ex parte. It had allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue in part and had rejected the cross-objections and appeals filed by the applicant. Thereafter, an application dated May 7, 1985, was filed by the applicant before the Tribunal seeking recall of the order dated January 29, 1985, passed by it and to hear and decide the appeals and the cross-objections. The said application was rejected by the Tribunal, vide order dated August 13, 1985. It may be mentioned here that in the application for recall the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed August 13, 1985, did not advert to the certificate issued by the Railway authorities and also disbelieved the certificate given by counsel Sri Dinesh Kumar Agrawal on the ground that he was not a counsel in the case of M/s. Goyal Associates of Dhampur, which was represented by some other counsel. The whole approach of the Tribunal has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It has to be remembered that the Tribunal has been created under the Act for deciding the disputes between the parties in accordance with law on the merits. In the present case, the Tribunal ought to have taken a humanitarian approach on the application for recall filed by the applicant, specially when the applicant had proved by documentary evidence that he had got a ber....