TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the said order of penalty, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent which was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order made by the second respondent, the Revenue filed an appeal before the third respondent. It is Submitted that the appeal was posted for hearing on February 10, 1994, and as the petitioner's chartered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... request. The petitioner assails the said letter, exhibit P-6, sent by the Assistant Registrar. There is no doubt that exhibit P-4 order was passed ex parte. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed petitions to set aside those ex parte orders by filing petitions. The petitions filed by the petitioner to set aside those ex parte orders could be only under rule 24 of the Income-tax (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toring the appeal. The proviso mandates the Tribunal to consider the petition of the petitioner and then decide the said petition on its merits. A reading of exhibit P-6 would show that the Tribunal decided not even to register the petitions and rejected them without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Further it is seen from exhibit P-6 that there is no order of the Tribunal rejecting the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner cannot be given an opportunity to put forth his case on the petitions filed by him. In my view, exhibit P-6 has to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to consider the petitions of the petitioner seeking to set aside the ex parte order, exhibit P-4, and dispose of them on their merits after giving an opportunity to the petitioner or his authorised represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
