9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal, therefore, after hearing the learned SDR, passed an ex parte order dismissing the ROM application on merits. In the present Misc. Application, Shri A.K. Jain, learned advocate for the applicant has stated that he could not reach the Court of this Tribunal at 10.15 A.M. for being involved in a minor car accident near Dhaula Kuan and therefore was late in reaching the Court room by forty minutes. It is also stated that on reaching the Court he was informed that the Bench had already passed an ex parte order on the ROM application. In the Misc. Application, now filed by the learned advocate, he has prayed for setting aside the Tribunal's ex parte order and for granting an opportunity of placing the case before the Tribunal. 2. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t held that the Tribunal had inherent jurisdiction, ancillary to the jurisdiction given by Section 254 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, to restore and rehear an appeal disposed of on the merits in the absence of any party who has been prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause from appearing before the Tribunal at the hearing of the appeal and directed the Tribunal to consider the application for restoration and rehearing of the appeal. The learned advocate has also relied on a judgment of Kerala High Court the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu-IV v. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal and Another, reported in (1979) 120 ITR 231, in which the Hon'ble High Court held that there was no express provision prohibiting the Tribunal from exer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een quoted in paragraph 4 of the Misc. Order. It has been stated in that paragraph that there was no apparent mistake from the record and that the said ROM application for rectification of mistake was for the purposes and in effect a review petition. The Customs Act does not confer on this Tribunal any power to review an order passed by it. 5. In the light of the above, the Misc. Application filed by the applicant does not merit any favourable consideration and hence the same is dismissed. 6. [Order per : S.V. Maruthi]. -I have perused the order proposed by Shri Mandal, Member (Technical) in C/Misc/212/89-A in C/ROM/7/89-A in appeal No. C/130/88-A. I am unable, with regret, to subscribe to the view expressed by him on the question of appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ex parte order. Since the ROM was decided without hearing the appellant, and since there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, the ex parte order in my view is liable to be set aside. 10. I, therefore, allow the miscellaneous application C/Misc/212/89-A in C/ROM/7/89-A in C/A. No. C/130/88-A and direct the ROM to be posted for hearing on merits. 10A. [Order per : V. Rajamanickam, Member (T). -I agree with the view held by Sister S.V. Maruthi, Judicial Member. The Miscellaneous Application is only for setting aside the ex parte order and allowing the appellant an opportunity of being heard without prejudice to the decision to be taken on merits, in complying with the principles of natural justice, the Miscellaneous Application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
