TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mating the total income at Rs. 27,13,850. Accordingly, the firm was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 9,76,199 as income-tax. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the firm filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ). That appeal was rejected by order dated December 16, 1986. A second appeal was preferred to the Income-ax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). A petition for stay of collection of tax was also moved before the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted stay subject to the condition that the assessee should furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Department. The assessee complied with the conditions stipulated in the stay order. The Tribunal posted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appened to be absent before the Tribunal when the appeal came up for hearing on May 5, 1987, and prayed for re-hearing the appeal. That application was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated January 20, 1988, on the ground that the assessee has not brought out any mistake as such arising from the order of the Tribunal. Hence, this original petition. The petitioner moved C. M. P. No. 4551 of 1988, in 0. P. No. 1503 of 1988, praying for stay of all proceedings for the recovery of income tax for the assessment year 1983-84. On February 24, 1988, this court directed the petitioner to pay 50 per cent. of the tax due for the year 1983-84 within one month. In compliance with that order, the assessee paid Rs. 4,63,650 on March 23, 1988. Im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complied with the principles of natural justice in disposing of the appeal, I.T.A. No. 29 (Coch) of 1987. It is common case that I.T.A. No. 29 (Coch) of 1987 came up before the Tribunal for the first time on May 5, 1987. It has also come out that Shri P, Ramanarayanan was the counsel representing the appellant before the Tribunal. Since Shri P. Ramanarayanan was out of station, his junior filed an application on May 4, 1987, praying for an a adjournment of the case. That application for adjournment was rejected and the Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeal on the basis of records, because it had stayed the recovery of tax, on the assessee furnishing security for the amount. By this, no effective opportunity was afforded to the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appointed for hearing, neither the assessee nor his representative was present. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-objection. The decision was rendered on merits. The assessee filed a miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal for the restoration of the appeal and the cross-objection for a fresh hearing and disposal. The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous petition and reposted the appeal for hearing. That action of the Tribunal was challenged before this court by the Commissioner of Income-tax on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to review its earlier order. This contention was negatived, observing (headnote) : " The power of setting aside an ex parte order to afford an opportunity of being heard to the aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
