Case Law Details
Gudari Large Sized Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Orissa High Court)
Summary: The Orissa High Court held that an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot be dismissed merely because the Authorised Representative (AR) appeared in improper dress during a virtual hearing. The Court observed that the Tribunal’s order was not passed on the merits of the case, but solely due to an alleged violation of the virtual hearing dress code prescribed under the SOP. Referring to Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the Court noted that where an appellant does not appear, the Tribunal is required to decide the appeal on merits and there is no provision permitting dismissal solely for improper attire of the AR. The Department also fairly conceded that no such rule authorizes dismissal on dress code grounds. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, restored the appeal to its original file, and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously on merits.
An issue came up before Hon’ble Chief Justice of Orissa High court when the assessee challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench which had dismissed the assessee’s appeal not on merits, but solely because the Authorised Representative (AR), appearing through virtual mode, was allegedly not dressed in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prescribed for virtual hearings. The assessee approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging this dismissal.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the ITAT’s order and restored the appeal to the Tribunal for disposal on merits by observing that the Tribunal had not adjudicated the appeal on merits. Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 provides the procedure where the appellant does not appear and Even assuming there was any defect in appearance, the Tribunal ought to have proceeded in accordance with Rule 24 instead of dismissing the appeal.
In terms of Rule 24 of the said Rules, the Tribunal ought to have proceeded to decide the matter treating the non-appearance of the appellant, the petitioner herein. He fairly concedes that there is no provision for dismissal of an appeal if the Authorised Representative is not in a proper dress.
The Revenue itself fairly conceded that there is no provision empowering the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal merely because the Authorised Representative was not in proper dress. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s order could not be sustained.
Key Takeaways
Dress code violations are not a statutory ground for dismissal of an appeal and Procedural guidelines cannot override statutory rules. Courts will intervene where judicial forums deny adjudication on merits for reasons unsupported by law. Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules governs situations of non-appearance and must be followed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Assailing order dated 14th August, 2025 passed in ITA No.414/CTK/2025 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (through virtual hearing), the writ petition has been filed. Without delving into the nuances of law pertaining to the jurisdiction exercised by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis the remedy by way of an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, we invited the attention of the counsel to address us on the impugned order, which admittedly does not appear to have been passed on merit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assesse is not in a proper dress as per the SOP for virtual mode.
2. Having invited the attention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department, the provisions contained in Rule 17A of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and the other relevant provisions, the learned Senior Standing Counsel in his fairness submits that in terms of Rule 24 of the said Rules, the Tribunal ought to have proceeded to decide the matter treating the non-appearance of the appellant, the petitioner herein. He fairly concedes that there is no provision for dismissal of an appeal if the Authorised Representative is not in a proper dress.
3. In view of the above, the order impugned is hereby set aside. The appeal filed before the Tribunal is restored to its original file and number. The Appellate Tribunal is requested to make endeavor to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all pending Interlocutory Application(s) shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
