Paresh S. Shah vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Failure to comply with the criterion necessary to represent the matter before the Tribunal, in time, renders appeal liable for dismissal

The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal but repeatedly sought adjournments. He also did not file a letter of authority authorizing his CAs to appear in the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Thereafter, the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal restored the appeal even though no power of attorney was filed even at this stage. Even after recalling the appeals the assessee continued to seek adjournments on one pretext or the other. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and also awarded costs. The assessee again filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking restoration of the appeal. At the hearing of the MA, the power of attorney of the Counsel was not filed. HELD by the Tribunal dismissing the MA:

(i) It deserves to be noticed here that in Mumbai, despite repeatedly pointing out in each and every case, learned counsels rarely follow the practice of filing the power of attorney and many Members of the Tribunal, who do not believe it be their obligation to verify the availability of power of attorney, may not point out the same to the counsels and it results in counsels appearing without filing a power of attorney. There are equal number of occasions where several other Members, including Members of this Bench, have had occasion to point out that there was no power of attorney and counsels filed xerox copies or take further time to file power of attorney. In fact some would go to the extent of stating that they assumed that the power of attorney is on record and when we verify the file (though it is their duty to file power of attorney) and inform the counsel that there is no power of attorney then fresh power of attorney is filed. Particularly in the bench which is presided over by the Vice President, the registry notes on the file that the power of attorney of a person, who is representing the matter, is not on record and then the power of attorney is filed, notwithstanding the fact that before filing the power of attorney the same counsel or Chartered Accountant must have already taken adjournments on several occasions.

(ii) On facts, there is no sufficient cause for restoration of the appeal under the proviso to Rule 24. The power of attorney has not been filed. The appeals were dismissed twice as adjournments were sought on spurious grounds. The assessee and his counsels have done lackluster attempt to represent the matters by not fulfilling all the criterion necessary to represent the matter before the Tribunal, in time.