- (1.) At the request of the parties, arguments were heard and the appeal is being disposed off finally. Assessee/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench 'B', Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Alwar.
(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that appeal before the Tribunal was fixed on 09.02.2010. Counsel for the assessee had moved an application for adjournment of the case, in advance, on 08.02.2010 on the ground that he is going to Mumbai for some urgent work. The case was taken up on 09.02.2010. Application for adjournment, filed on behalf of Counsel for assessee, was rejected and the case was heard ex-parte and appeal of the Revenue was allowed. He received a copy of order dated 26.02.2010 on 26.03.2010 and preferred the appeal before this Court. He submitted that from para 2 of the impugned order, it is clear that adjournment application was rejected only on the ground that a last opportunity was granted to him to argue the appeal. He submitted that Counsel for assessee had to go outside Jaipur due to some urgent work, but the said request was not considered and by a non-speaking order, application was rejected. He also submitted that even if a last opportunity was granted on last date, it does not mean that on sufficient ground the case can not be adjourned again. Since, it is matter where tax effect is more than Rs. 46 lacs, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to adjourn the case. He, therefore, submitted that order of the Tribunal may be set aside and the case may be remitted back to the Tribunal for decision on merits, afresh.
(3.) Learned counsel for the Revenue defended the impugned order of the Tribunal and submitted that Counsel for assessee was avoiding the hearing and a last opportunity was granted to him, but again he sent an application for adjournment of the case, therefore, the Tribunal rejected the application and heard the Counsel for the Revenue and rightly decided the appeal. Therefore, no interference in the order of the Tribunal is called for by this Court.;