No Adjournment in absence of ‘Vakalatnama’ based on Principle of Natural Justice

RNB Carbide & Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Guwahati)

In the present case, the Tribunal had fixed the case for hearing on 19.02.2018 and at that time one Shri Brojesh Sharma, AR of the assessee had filed adjournment petition and requested to fix the case on 21.02.2018. However, on 21.02.2018, Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate appeared and again sought for adjournment. The Tribunal was of the opinion that since no Vakalatnama had been filed in the name of Shri Somnath Ghosh, the adjournment application was rejected and the Bench proceeded to dispose of the appeals after hearing the Ld. DR. The assessee is aggrieved by this action of the Tribunal since according to it, they had authorized Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate to appear and plead the appeals before the Tribunal.

ITAT state that, the Misc. Application which has been verified by Shri Varun More, Director of the assessee company that though the assessee had infact authorized Shri Somnath Ghosh to appear on behalf of the assessee. However, since the copy of the appeal could be given only a day before the case was listed for hearing, the Advocate could not be briefed by the Director of the assessee company because he was recovering from viral fever and also was infected with Pharyngitis. Prescription of the doctor has also been enclosed along with the adjournment application. So, according to ITAT, there was reasonable cause for the assessee to seek adjournment. However, ITAT note that the assessee company had authenticated that Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate is their AR and, therefore, we are of the opinion that due to confusion created because of non-filing of Vakalatnama had led to the impugned order being passed by the Tribunal. In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, ITAT are of the opinion that there has been a violation of the principle of Natural Justice and, since assessee had not been effectively heard/not-heard before the disposal of the appeal, ITAT recall the impugned order of the Tribunal and the Registry is directed to fix all the aforementioned appeals that are restored in due course. Therefore, all the Misc. Applications of the assessee are allowed.

FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT

All these Misc. Applications (MAs) preferred by the assessee are against the order of this Tribunal dated 22.02.2018 for AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12 wherein it has been pointed out that the Tribunal has disposed off the appeal without the assistance of the Ld. AR of the assessee though assessee had moved an application for adjournment. The tribunal we note has observed that none appeared for the assessee and the Tribunal at para 2 has observed as under:

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.