Wp/15330/1992 Of Kumar Power Products Pvt. Ltd v. The Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15330 of 1992 Between: Kumar Power Products Pvt. Ltd., rep. by R.P. Gupta, DirectorPlot No.91, Co-op Industrial Estate, (Expension Programme), Gandhinagar,Balanagar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench 'A' Shapoor house, 5-9-22, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad-500 463 2 The Income Tax Officer, F-Ward. Com Circle, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased tocall for the records of the Appellate Tribunal in M.P.No.23/Hyd/92 and issue anappropriate Writ, order or direction more preferably in the nature of Writ of Certiorariand quash the order of the Appellate Tribunal in M.P.No.23/Hyd/92 dt: 15-6-92holding the same as illegal, and arbitrary and direct the Appellate Tribunal to re-hearthe Appeal in I.T.A.No.1363/Hyd/88. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAJI REDDYCounsel for the Respondents: MR.S.R.ASHOK The Court made the following O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki). Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Tribunal inMiscellaneous Application No.23/Hyd/92, dated 15-06-1992, refusing to recall theorder passed on merits in an appeal. The only ground taken in the Miscellaneous Application is that the order had beenpassed ex parte without notice to the petitioner. That is not borne by the record. Inthe Tribunal’s main order, in the appeal, it was mentioned that the petitioner was notable to produce before it any record pertaining to the Company’s Director’s visit to aForeign country to inspect the machinery, therefore, the case was adjourned toenable the petitioner to produce the record, thereafter, he did not appear before theTribunal. The case was also adjourned on almost four occasions to enable thepetitioner to put forth the arguments. Since the petitioner failed to do so after havingsufficient notice, the Miscellaneous Application was rightly rejected by the Tribunal.Hence, we dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs. 25[th] August, 2004. (BILAL NAZKI, J) _____________________ vrn _____________________ (S.ANANDA REDDY, J) To 1 The Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench 'A' Shapoor house, 5-9-22, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad-500 463 Shapoor house, 5-9-22, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad-500 463 2 The Income Tax Officer, F-Ward. Com Circle, Hyderabad 3 Two C.D copies