S GOVINDARAJA MUDALIAR Vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petitions may be disposed of together since they relate to the same subject-matter but concerning different stages and submissions also have been made by learned counsel appearing on either side in common.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 7705 of 1984 has been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent Tribunal in WTA Nos. 583 to 596/(Mad) of 1982 dt. 28th Oct., 1983, whereunder the first respondent, Tribunal, Madras, has finally disposed of and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on merits. Thereupon, the petitioner filed miscellaneous applications in Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 80 and 84 to 97 of 1983, seeking rehearing of the matter, since according to the petitioner, the earlier disposal dt. 28th Oct., 1983 without hearing learned counsel for the assessee, could not be said to be a disposal on the merits after hearing the parties. The first respondent Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous applications holding that no case has been made out for restoration and for the reason that there was no error or mistake apparent on the record by its order dt. 21st May, 1984. It is to cancel the said order dt. 21st May, 1984, and to rehear the main appeals that WTA Nos. 583 to 596/(Mad) of 1982 and WP No. 7706 of 1984 have been filed.

(3.) AGAIN , the petitioner has given another letter dt. 14th Oct., 1983, to the Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal that when he submitted his petition on 11th Oct., 1983, the Judicial Member gave him the impression that he would be given a hearing the next day and since that matter was not taken up the next day also, the petitioner may be informed of the next hearing at an early date. Again, the petitioner has given another petition on 25th Nov., 1983, stating that, on the date of the hearing viz., on 11th Oct., 1983, the petitioner and his auditor requested for the case being passed over and adjourned to the next date, and, at the request of the Tribunal, the auditor submitted certain facts and details for consideration even though he was not authorised to appear in the matter. It may be noticed even at this stage that the want of authority in the auditor has been introduced for the first time in this petition dt. 25th Nov., 1983. While further referring to the earlier requests made for rehearing, a suggestion is made that his request was accepted and it is only on such directions that an application came to be filed to the Bench clerk and once again he requested for posting the appeals for hearing at an early date and intimation of the date of such hearing.