ANAND KANTILAL CHOKSHI HUF Vs. ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions arise out of common background. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In response to the notice for final disposal issued by us on 26.11.2012, learned counsel Shri Manav Mehta appeared for the Revenue and opposed the petitions.

(2.) FOR the purpose of this order, we may notice the facts as stated in Special Civil Application No. 14939/2012. Since facts are identical in all the petitions, it would not be necessary to record such facts in other petitions.

(3.) THE petitioner is an individual assessee. The petitioners tax appeal was pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short). Such appeal was dismissed for non appearance by the Tribunal on 28.3.2011. The petitioner moved a Misc. Application for recalling such an order. The Tribunal allowed such Misc. Application by its order dated 29.7.2011 primarily on the ground that even in absence of the assessee, the appeal should not have been dismissed for non prosecution but should have been decided on merits. Be that as it may, having recalled its previous order of dismissing the appeal for default, the Tribunal ordered the Registry to place the appeal for hearing on 28.9.2011. The Tribunal also recorded that this development was conveyed to both the parties in the open Court.