Wpc/6945/2013 Of Naresh Kumar Agarwal v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi & Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIW.P.(T) No. 6945 of 2013 --- Naresh Kumar Agarwal------ ---PetitionerVersusIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi & another -- ---- Respondents --- Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh --- For the Petitioner: Mr. Binod Poddar,Sr. Advocate,Ms.Amrita Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate Order No. 02Dated 02nd December 2013 --- Heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. 2.Misc. Application No. 42/RAN/2008 filed by the writ petitioner under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 19[th] October 2012 (Annexure-7) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Circuit Bench, Ranchi. 3.The petitioner is said to have filed an appeal bearing ITA No. 523/Pat/1998 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals). It is contended on behalf of the learned Senior counsel that on the fateful day i.e. 25[th] July 2000, the said appeal stood dismissed for non appearance of the assessee / petitioner. Learned Senior counsel submits that as a matter of fact, the writ petitioner was accused in the fodder scam cases and had been subjected to custody two days thereafter on 27[th] July 2000 which was one of the reasons for his inability to be present on the date when the matter was taken up. It is further submitted that in the order dated 25[th] July 2000, it was however observed that if the appellant is able to show sufficient cause, his appeal could be considered for restoration. However, after being released, the petitioner was also pursuing another appeal before the learned Tribunal and he came to know about the dismissal of the said appeal for default. In such circumstances, Misc. Application No. 42/RAN/2008 was preferred which has been rejected by the learned Tribunal by the impugned order, which is not proper. 4.Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no lack of diligence on their part and they are willing to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal so that the matter can be heard. 5.Learned counsel for the Revenue however opposes the prayer stating that the appellant has not been diligently pursuing the appeal. 6.Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that in the order of dismissal of the appeal itself, it was observed that if the appellant is able to show sufficient cause, his restoration application could be considered. We are of the view that the interest of justice shall be served if the learned Tribunal reconsider the restoration application and the petitioner is allowed to canvass all such available grounds which are there for seeking restoration of the main appeal. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 19[th] October 2012 is set aside. 7.Learned counsel for the parties however informed that the learned Tribunal does not hold regular sitting at Ranchi. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner shall appear before the learned Tribunal immediately on the second working day of its first sitting to be held at Ranchi so that the learned Tribunal may consider the Misc. Application thereafter. 8.The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (R. Banumathi, C.J.) (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)