RAJ CORPORATION Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) HAVING regard to the facts of the case and considering the fact that the controversy involved in the present case lies in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) IT appears that against the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal being ITA No. 77/Ahd/2011. By an order dated 13.6.2014, the appeal came to be decided ex parte as there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under section 254(2) of the Act before the Tribunal seeking recall of the earlier order in the light of the fact that the previous order which was subject -matter of appeal before the Tribunal had been subsequently rectified by the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order dated 19.2.2015, the Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that no sufficient cause had been made out for non -appearance at the time of hearing of the appeal.