Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 53 - HC - Income TaxNon prosecution of appeal - ITAT dismissed all three appeals by common order on the ground that none appeared on behalf of the assessee which means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting these appeals - Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the proceedings in limine contrary to the provisions of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 ? - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the language used in Rule 24 of the Rules of 1963 and applying the principles laid down in S. Chenniappa Mudaliar[1969 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal thereby dismissing the appeals in limine for non-appearance of the appellant holding that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals is unsustainable. The Tribunal was duty bound to decide the appeals on merits after hearing the respondent – Revenue as per mandate of Rule 24 and in terms of ratio in S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (supra). Substantial question is answered by holding that in view of language used in Rule 24, the ITAT was not justified in dismissing the appeals for absence of assessee in limine and it ought to have decided the appeals on merits even if the appellant or his representative was not present when the appeals were taken up for hearing. The impugned order therefore, being contrary to Rule 24 of the Rules of 1963 is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. ITA allowed.
|