Facts

The assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed for default of non- appearance. The assessee  filed an application seeking restoration of  the appeal    so that it could be considered on merits. The Tribunal held that there was no sufficient cause for restorationand the application was rejected.

Issue

Can the Tribunal dismiss an appeal for non-appearance by a party, without going into the merits of the case?

Views

The assessee argued that once an appeal is validly filed before the Tribunal, the same must be adjudicated upon considering the meritsof the  case in view of  the clear language of section 33 of the 1922 Act (corresponding to section 254        of the 1961 Act). The Department argued that Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules permits the Tribunal to dispose off an appeal for default of non-appearance without considering the merits of the case.

Held

The Supreme Court concurred with the assessee and held that the language of     the section requires the Tribunal to dispose off an appeal filed before it on merits after considering the submissions made by the parties and that the Tribunal cannot dispose off an appeal simply for the default of non-appearance by the appellant. It was further held that the Rule which permits such a dismissal, i.e., Rule 24 is inconsistent with the language of the provision and is therefore not valid. (AY. 1956-57) (CA No. 1515 of 1968 dt. 24-2-1969)

Editorial :  The same view has been taken by  the Supreme Court in  the case    of Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. CCE & Customs (2014) 272 CTR 205 (SC).

On the other hand, the Supreme Court in the cases of Sunderlal Mannalal v. Nandramdas Dwarkadas [AIR 1958 MP 260] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan [(2000) 3 SCC 242] has held that a Court or a Tribunal can dismiss an appeal for non-persecution

“It is the quality of our work which will please God and not the quantity.”

– Mahatma Gandhi

.