- (1.)MR . K.M. Shivayogiswamy, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No.2.
(2.)I do not find any merit in this writ petition and is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:
The petitioner is a partnership firm. It owns a coffee estate at Chickmagalur. The firm was liable to be taxed on its coffee income under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment year 1998-99. The Assessing Authority while concluding the assessment, made an addition of Rs.18,84,000/- to the declared coffee income. He also disallowed expenses of Rs.10,96,330/- under the head 'wages'. This was questioned by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax who reduced the addition made to coffee income from Rs.18,84,000/- to Rs.9,42,000/- and the disallowance of expenses was reduced from Rs.10,96,330/- to Rs.6,30,213/-, which would necessarily mean that the petitioner was substantially benefited. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal questioning the order of the Joint Commissioner insofar as disallowing the claim. The appeal papers were sent by post to the Tribunal on 27.12.2001. The case of the petitioner is that there was no communication from the Tribunal subsequent to the filing of the appeal regarding its status and the petitioner continued to be under the bonafide impression for over a period of nine years that the appeal filed by him is pending disposal. But however, the petitioner received a demand notice on 4.1.2011 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,56,620/- for the assessment year 1998-99 on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on 30.4.2002. On receipt of the demand the petitioner files a Misc. Petition before the Tribunal seeking to recall the order dated 30.4.2002 and restore the appeal to the file and hear it on merits. The said application is filed under Regulation 28A of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulation Amendment Act, 1979 (for short 'the Regulations '). The Misc. Petition was heard and the Tribunal found that the delay of nine years is not at all explained by the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was not vigilant after filing of the appeal in the year 2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.)MR . S.P. Bhat, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that every order passed by the Tribunal is required to be communicated to the petitioner/appellant. He further submits no such exercise has been done by the Tribunal. The petitioner came to know about the order of dismissal only when the notice was issued on 4.1.2011 and immediately thereafter within six months the petition is filed. He submits that every order passed by the Tribunal whatever might be the nature is required to be communicated to the party. Hence, the delay was explained and sufficient cause was shown.