Jagdish Chand and Sons vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Another

Heard.

The petitioner''s appeals had been dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by an ex parte order. The petitioner filed an application for recall of that order and that application has been rejected by the impugned order dated October 9, 2003, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

In our opinion, an appeal lies against the order dated October 9, 2003, u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act. Section 260A(1) of the Act states :

"An appeal shall lie to the court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

In our opinion, the words used in Section 260A(1) are wide enough to include orders of the nature of the impugned order passed on the petitioner''s applications for recalling the ex parte order of the Tribunal, which has been rejected. The words used in Section 260A are "every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal".

In our opinion, the impugned order was certainly an order passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Hence, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal u/s 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act against the impugned order.

The petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.