9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the opposite party no.2 whereby the recall application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the grounds of limitation prescribed under section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the provisions of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. 3. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that an order of assessment/penalty came to be passed against the petitioner on 11.03.2015 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which too was dismissed on 03.11.2016. The petitioner challenged the order of CIT (A) by filing an Appeal before the Income Tax Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Rule 24 is quoted herein below : "24. Hearing of appeal ex-parte for default by the appellant.- Where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorized representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent: Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex-parte order and restoring the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal invoking the limitation as prescribed under section 254 (2) while deciding the application for recall of an order. The Delhi High Court after considering the provisions of section 254(2) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules discussed the provisions and decided that the application for recall is to be decided in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 24 of the Rules and reliance upon Section 254 was misplaced. 9. I do not see any reason to disagree with the said judgment as in the present case also, the application moved by the petitioner, in its tenor was traceable to the provisions of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules and the petitioner never sought rectification of the said order. A mere wrong menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
