RAJENDRA PRASAD BORAH Vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India registers a challenge to the order dated 23.8.2007 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dismissing four appeals being ITA Nos. 29/Gau/2006, 30/Gau/2006, 35/Gau/2006 & 36/Gau/2006 filed by the petitioner assessee before it against the assessment orders dated 21.12.2005, 21.12.2005, 20.12.2005 & 20.12.2005 for the assessment year 1990 -91, 1991 -92, 1988 -89 & 1989 -90 respectively.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Roy Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. S. Roy Choudhury and Mr. Manash Haloi, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Standing counsel, Revenue assisted by Mr. B. Chakraborty and Ms. K. Medhi, Advocates.

(3.) MR . Roy Choudhury has argued that having regard to the prescription of Section 254 of the Act and the state of law as contained in Rule 24 of the Rules, the impugned decision suffers from patent error of law and is liable to be adjudged non est, ineffectual, null and void. According to the learned Senior counsel, even if the appellant assessee was absent before the Tribunal, the only course open to it was to dispose of the appeal on merits. In any view of the matter, therefore, Mr. Roy Choudhury urged that the impugned order on the face of the record is illegal and liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice. In support of his contention, the/learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. : [1969]74ITR41(SC) as well as of this Court in , the Assam Tribune v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Standing counsel, Revenue, does not dispute the proposition of law as projected by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeals may be ordered to be disposed of on merits by the learned Tribunal.