TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT) ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. The assessee has filed the present Misc. application on 06/12/2017 against the order of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 07/11/2017 passed in ITA No. 726/JP/2017 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. In this case, the assessee filed appeal vide ITA No. 726/JP/2017 for the assessment year 2008-09 against the order of learned CIT(A)-1, Jaipur dated 26/07/2017. This Bench of the ITAT, Jaipur has decided the appeal in absence of the assessee and dismissed the assessee s appeal. 3. The assessee filed this Misc. application and explained the reasons as to why the hearing of appeal on 06/11/2017 could not be attended. The assessee has submitted as under: 1. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320, the Delhi Bench have considered two decisions namely Shri Bhagwan Radhakishan v. CIT reported in 22 ITR 104 (All) and Mangatram Kuthiala v. CIT reported in 38 ITR 1 (Pun). It is respectfully submitted that the decision in the case of Shri Bhagwan Radhakishan reported in 22 ITR 104 has been overruled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Chennaiappa Mudaliar reported in 74 ITR 41 and decision in the case of Mangatram Kuthiala reported in 38 ITR 1 has been considered as not relevant to the appeal before Income Tax Appellant Tribunal. In the said judgement of S. Chenniappa Mudaliar at page 47, their lordship have held that the decision of Mangatram Kuthiala relates to the Articles 226 and 227 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Act. How, in the circumstances the tribunal could hold that the assessee s appeal form the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not maintainable when the appeal lay from the said order. The Tribunal misread and misapplied rules 10 and 20 of the Rules of 1963, in holding that the assessee s appeal was not maintainable. If for any reason, the assessee was not being represented on the date of hearing, the Tribunal could have proceeded for hearing of the appeal ex-parte provided in rule 24 but that was not done. The appeal should have been heard on the merits and the Tribunal erroneously held that the assessee s appeal is not maintainable in law. We accordingly set aside the order dated October, 9, 2002 in so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
