INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. FAGOOMAL LAKSHMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 1 were dismissed for fault. According to Rule 22 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, all rules relating to appeals, so far as may be, are made applicable to cross-objections. THErefore, the cross-objections could be restored under Rule 24 of the said Rules which gives power to the Tribunal to order such restoration, if satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the earlier non-appearance of the party at fault. No illegality thus attaches to the order of restoration which in effect appears to be eminently just. THE appeal filed by the petitioners being undoubtedly in connection with the cross-objections, the order deciding it ex parte has also to be set aside, the Tribunal having inherent power to do so.

(2.) KOSHAL J. was right in having dismissed, at the admission stage, a writ petition filed by the income-tax department against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at Ernakulam. The short facts are as follows. Against the order of the AAC, which was prejudicial to the revenue, the department took up the matter before the Tribunal, Cochin Bench. After the filing of the appeal, the assessee taking advantage of the provision in Section 253(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, filed a memorandum of cross-objections against the AAC's order. Both the appeal and the memorandum of cross-objections came up for hearing before the Tribunal on January 8, 1975. The assessee was not present. It appears that the Tribunal disposed of the revenue's appeal and, in consequence, dismissed the cross-objections. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application before the Tribunal stating that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when his cross-objections were called for hearing, and the Tribunal made an order setting aside the dismissal of the cross-objections. Effectually, therefore, they had set aside the order passed by them ex parte in the revenue's appeal as well. This provoked the revenue to file the writ petition to quash the order of the Tribunal. KOSHAL J., after referring to the relevant provisions in the Act and the Rules made under the I.T. Act, was of the view that no illegality was attached to the order of restoration which in effect appeared to him to be eminently just. He also expressed the view that, as the appeal filed by the revenue was inextricably connected with the cross-objections filed by the assessee, the order of the Tribunal setting aside the ex parte order passed by them in favour of the revenue was also held to be in order. It is as against this, the present writ appeal has been filed.