COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. AVON CYCLES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') raising the following substantial question of law, arising out of the order passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') in I.T.A. No. 211/Chandi/2005 dated 16.4.2007 for the assessment year 1999-2000;

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue submitted that on the date fixed before the Tribunal, departmental representative who had been allotted the case could not appear for certain unavoidable reasons and other departmental representative who was present requested for an adjournment, which was rejected by the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed in default. He further submitted that even an application filed by the assessee for adjournment was dismissed, though as far as the department is concerned, the Tribunal recorded that no application for adjournment had been filed. He further submitted that the issue raised by the Revenue in appeal before the Tribunal is an important question which has already been decided in favour of the Revenue by this Court and in case, the appeal is not heard on merits by the Tribunal, the same will result in miscarriage of justice.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and without opining on the merits of the controversy involved therein, in our considered view, it would be in the fitness of things and interest of justice that the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal is heard and decided on merits. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on the date fixed none was present for the parties before the Tribunal, though it is recorded that there was no written request on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal, whereas a similar written application filed by the assessee for adjournment was rejected. It is also found recorded in the order that other departmental representative present in the Court requested for an adjournment on the ground that the case had been allotted to another departmental representative. However, the same was rejected.