B RANGA REDDY Vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, the Assessee has come up with the above Writ Petition.

(2.) Heard Sri K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.

(3.) It appears that on the very first day when the appeal was posted for hearing, viz., 03.12.2018, it was dismissed for nonprosecution. Therefore challenging the said order, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel contended that if the order impugned in the writ petition is an order on merits, the petitioner has to file only a regular appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act, 1961'). It is further contended by the learned senior standing counsel that if the impugned order is construed as an order of dismissal for default, then the appropriate course of action open to the petitioner is to file an application in terms of the proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (for short 'Rules, 1963'). A writ petition, according to the learned senior standing counsel, is not maintainable.