Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1137 - HC - Income TaxTribunal power to recall an order passed by it in violation of the principles of natural justice if so established - application of the assessee for recall of an order by which the appeal was decided exparte - Hearing of appeal ex parte for default by the respondent - Held that:- The power of procedural review to recall an order is inherent in every authority which exercises quasi judicial jurisdiction. Therefore, even if there is no specific power of review vested in the Tribunal, it has inherent power to consider the application for recall of an order passed by it if it is established that it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or by playing fraud upon it. Rule 25 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 provides for the hearing of the appeal exparte for default of the respondents. It lays down that in an appeal where the appellant appears and the respondents does not appear when the appeal is taken up for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the appellants. It further provides that where the appeal has been disposed of in the above manner and the respondents appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non appearance, the Tribunal shall set aside the order and restore the appeal for hearing on merits. Thus it is implicit that the Tribunal has statutory power to recall its order if it is satisfied that the respondent has failed to appear before it for sufficient cause, at the time of hearing and to restore the appeal. It cannot be said that the Tribunal has no authority of law to consider the application of the assessee for recall of an order by which the appeal was decided exparte. Tribunal is not justified in rejecting the applications of the appellant-assessee on the ground that it has no power to review the order already passed by it. Accordingly, we answer the above question in favour of the appellant-assessee.
|