Allowing the petition the Court held that the assessee had given a sufficient and cogent explanation for non-appearance of its representative, which, however, the Tribunal had failed to take into account but went into the question of the merits of the ex parte decision, by delving into the correctness of the order. The Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the assessee sought the recall of the order dated July 24, 2018 and restoration of the appeal, and not the rectification of any mistake apparent on record. The merits of the case could not have been gone into at the stage of deciding an application under rule 25. The proviso to rule 25 deals with a situation where the Tribunal had passed an ex-parte order, due to non-appearance of the respondent, even though the order was passed on the merits. The reasoning given in the order in question was beyond the scope and ambit of rule 25. The sufficiency of the cause, which was the only factor to be examined, had been ignored by the Tribunal. If sufficient cause was shown, the Tribunal was obligated to consider it and make an order setting aside the ex-parte order, irrespective of the fact that the final order had decided the appeal on the merits.  Accordingly the appeal of the Department before the Tribunal was restored. (AY. 2009-10)