TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1840
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Miscellaneous Application giving liberty to the assessee to file separate Miscellaneous Applications for each of the assessment years. Therefore, there is no delay in filing present Miscellaneous Applications. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The common grievance of the assessee in the instant M.As is that on the date of hearing fixed on 23.08.2024 assessee sought through his legal representative Mr. Tushar Nagori who appeared virtually sought adjournment petition on the ground that Senior Counsel who has to argue the matter is ill. However, this Tribunal rejected the adjournment and has passed the order dated 23.08.2024 dismissing the M.A. Nos. 159 to 164/PUN/2023. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the Medical Certificate issued by Saideep Hospital Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd., Ahmednagar dated 13.11.2022 stating that Mr. Prasad Subhash Bhandari (who is the Senior Counsel appointed by the assessee for arguing the appeals filed before this Tribunal) was suffering from Viral Fever and diagnosed Dengue Positive during the period 13.11.2022 to 28.11.2022. Therefore, there was a valid reason for seekin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee giving opportunity to file separate M.As. Relevant observation of the Tribunal reads as under : "3. After hearing the ld. Departmental Representative, we find that the applicant filed the instant Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the exparte order in ITA Nos. 447 to 452/PUN/2020 for the A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2012-13. Normally as many appeals are to be filed as the number of appeals have been disposed of by the order appealed against whereas the applicant herein has filed a single Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the consolidated order passed for various assessment years. Therefore, the M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed as 'infructuous'. However, the applicant is directed to move Miscellaneous Applications for each of the assessment year separately. 4. In the result, the M.A. filed by the applicant is dismissed." 9. Now by way of these instant M.A.Nos. 43 to 48/PUN/2025 the assessee is seeking recall of the Tribunal order dated 22.11.2022 in terms of Rule 24 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 following the principles of natural justice and since the assessee has been heard ex-parte, the impugned order dated 22.11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicant had filed a Miscellaneous Application ('MA') on 04.01.2023. The assessee in its application requested to recall the order on the following grounds: a) The Authorized representative i.e Shri Prasad S Bhandari has furnished the letter of authority on 07.09.2022. Thus, there was a valid power of attorney in favour of CA. Prasad S Bhandari who requested for adjournment of the hearing fixed on 14.11.2022 vide mail dated 14.11.2022 at 9.28 AM. Therefore, requested to grant an opportunity to heard the matter on merit and other legal grounds. b) The applicant had moved the additional ground of appeal which was not adjudicated by the Hon'ble Bench neither was it rejected by the Hon'ble Bench. 5. Accordingly, it was submitted that a mistake apparent from record had crept in the impugned order. The MA was called for hearing and the Hon'ble tribunal decided the case and passed an exparte under MA. No. 01 to 06/Pun/2023. The Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 24.05.2023 did not consider any of the aforesaid grounds and rejected the Miscellaneous Application of the appellant solely for the reason that a common power of attorney was fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound stating that arguing counsel was suffering from Viral Fever and could not appear on the given date. Further, evidence in support of the medical treatment undergone by the counsel Mr. Prasad S. Bhandari and the certificate issued by the concerned doctor has also been placed on record. All these documents prima facie indicate that there was 'sufficient cause' for seeking adjournment. However, this Tribunal has disposed of the appeals exparte. Further proviso to Rule 24 provides that in such case where the exparte order has been framed and the assessee is able to satisfy the Tribunal about the 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance. We find that the assessee case is duly covered by proviso to Rule 24 and the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 deserves to be recalled. The plea of the assessee in all the Miscellaneous Applications is that the consolidated order of the Tribunal dated 22.11.2022 is passed exparte and there had been no occasion for the assessee to putforth its contentions/submissions in support of grounds of appeal. In support, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of Masuma Iqbal Husain Rupani Vs. PCIT - M.A. Nos. 152....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Appellate Tribunal Rules. The relevant portion of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court is reproduced herein below:- "Learned counsel for the appellant sought to impress upon the Court that the period mentioned in Section 254(2) of the Act only applied when the Tribunal notices the error and decides to proceed ahead to rectify it and per se does not indicate any limitation within which the aggrieved party (assessee or Revenue) can approach it. He relied upon the judgments of the Allahabad High Court titled Vijay Kumar Ruia v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2011] 15 taxmann.com (Allahabad) and Gujarat High Court titled Liladhar T Khushlani Vs. Commissioner of Customs Tax Appeal No.915 of 2016 delivered on 25.01.2017 for this purpose. This Court is of the opinion that those judgments cannot afford the appellant any comfort. Section 254(2) of the Act was advisably amended to curtail extended period of four years which had been provided to either class of litigants to approach the ITAT for a rectification. In this case, the Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case, the ITAT did not decide the appeal on the merits as it is mandated to bu....