Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 2265 2000 SLD 2265 (2000) 245 ITR 288 (2001) 118 TAXMAN 68
Allahabad High Court
on 7 February, 2000
Bench: M Agarwal, S R Alam

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Prayag Udyog (P.) Ltd.

VS

Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT 1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenges an order dated July 29, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Allahabad, in ITA Nos. 753 and 1335 (Alld) of 1996 for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 whereby the said appeals have been dismissed on the grounds that the memorandum of appeals were defective inasmuch as they were argumentative. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also filed a supplementary counter affidavit. 2. We have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. The aforesaid appeals were filed by the petitioner through one Sri H.G. Agarwal, a practising chartered accountant of substantial standing. The said appeals were duly registered and posted for hearing. When the appeals came up for hearing on July 29, 1999, an application for adjournment signed by Sri H.G. Agarwal was moved. The Tribunal dismissed the said application on the ground that there was no power of attorney or vakalatnama in favour of the said Sri H.G. Agarwal, authorising” him to represent the appellant and, therefore, the application for adjournment was rejected and the Tribunal proposed to dispose of the appeals ex parte. 4. Then the Tribunal proceeded to examine the grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeals on the ground that the grounds set up by the appellant were argumentative and along with the grounds, several sub-grounds had been set up. The aforesaid narration of facts shows that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals on the ground that the memorandum of appeals were defective. In CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar [1969J 74 ITR 41, the Supreme Court held that an appeal under the Income-tax Act has to be decided on the merits and cannot be dismissed for default. Therefore, the absence of Sri…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492