Commissioner of Income Tax vs Hitech Flexotext (P) Ltd.

The revenue is aggrieved by an Order dated 3-5-2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (herein after referred to ''Tribunal'') in M.A. No. 180/Delhi/2005 in ITA Nos. 2890 and 3986/Delhi/1998 pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91.

It appears that the notice of hearing was sent to the assessed but a returned with the endorsement that the assessed had left the premises.

On this basis, the Tribunal passed an ex parte order.

Then the assessed filed an application before the Tribunal for recalling its order stating that it was available at the address given and there was no reason why the postal authorities had returned the notice on the ground that the assessed had left the premises. The Tribunal was satisfied with the Explanation given and recalled its ex parte order against the assessed and directed the Registry to fix the appeal for hearing.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion to recall the order made by it ex parte after being satisfied that the report given by the postal authorities was incorrect.

Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 deals with a situation where the Tribunal can recall an order passed by it ex parte on sufficient Explanation being given for the default in appearance by the appellant. Rule 25 is the corresponding provision for a default by the respondent.

No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.