Suresh Textiles vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "C" and Another

Satish Chandra, C.J.—Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 12th November, 1975, was fixed for its hearing. When the appeal was called for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal chose to proceed on with the hearing. It heard the departmental representative and disposed of the appeal on merits.

After the hearing of the appeal, the Tribunal received a telegram purporting to be from the petitioner praying for an adjournment on the ground of illness of the assessee''s accountant. On that date, the Tribunal passed an order stating: "Received after hearing. Somebody should have appeared in court. Rejected." The petitioner then made an application for setting aside the order under the inherent powers of the Tribunal. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal on April 2, 1976. It held that though the appeal was heard by the Tribunal on 12th November, 1975, yet it passed the order on 1st December, 1975. Even during this interval the assessee did not take care to find out the fate of its adjournment application. In the next place, it found that since the assessee had not produced the account books, it was not understandable how the accountant''s presence was material for the hearing of the appeal and one of the partners or even their counsel could have appeared and argued the appeal. On these grounds, the application was dismissed.

Aggrieved, the assessee has come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We find no substance in this petition. Both the grounds given by the Tribunal for refusing to restore the case are relevant and cogent. Moreover, the petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal. That admittedly is a discretionary jurisdiction. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the order refusing to restore the case suffers from any manifest error of law so as to entitle this court to interfere.

The petition has no substance and is accordingly dismissed with costs.