Appellate Tribunal: Adjournment: Section 255, Rule 32 of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963: Where a case is adjourned by Tribunal by giving a last opportunity to counsel for assessee, same can be adjourned again on the next date, if sufficient or reasonable cause exists on that day.

The assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal was fixed for hearing on 11-1-2010 and at the request of the counsel for the assessee, hearing of the case was adjourned to 9-2-2010 giving him a last opportunity. However, the counsel for the assessee moved an application before the Tribunal for adjournment of the case in advance on 8-2-2010 on the ground that he was going to Mumbai for some urgent work. On 9-2-2010 the Tribunal rejected the application for adjournment. It further heard the counsel for the Revenue ex parte and allowed the appeal of the Revenue. On appeal to High Court, the assessee contended, inter alia, that

(i) from the order of the Tribunal it was clear that adjournment application was rejected only on the ground that a last opportunity was granted to counsel for the assessee to argue the appeal, and

(ii) even if a last opportunity was granted on last date, it did not mean that on sufficient ground the case could not be adjourned again. The Rajasthan High Court allowed the assessee’s appeal and held as under: “(i) From the proceedings of the Tribunal dated 11-1-2010, it is clear that last opportunity was given and the case was adjourned for 9-2- 2010. Application for adjournment was filed on 8-2-2010, which was put up for consideration before the Tribunal on 9-2-2010. From the application, it appears that counsel for the assessee had to go to Mumbai due to some urgent work. No one was present on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal, in absence of counsel for the assessee, rejected the adjournment application. (ii) Ordinarily it is not incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to adjourn the case again when a last opportunity had already been granted to the counsel for the assessee. However, there may be number of circumstances where adjournment becomes necessary in the interest of justice. If counsel for the assessee had to go for some urgent work to Mumbai and an application for adjournment was moved in advance, then in the interest of justice a short adjournment should have been granted. If number of opportunities had already been afforded to the counsel for the assessee, then adjournment could have been granted on payment of cost.

(iii) The Tribunal has not assigned any reason as to whether reason mentioned in the application for adjournment constituted sufficient cause for adjournment or not. Even if a last opportunity is granted and case is fixed for hearing and sufficient cause is shown on the date fixed for hearing, then the case can be adjourned and it should be adjourned in the interest of justice. In these circumstances, the Tribunal committed an illegality in rejecting the application for adjournment and in deciding the appeal ex parte.

(iv) Therefore, the ex parte order passed by the Tribunal deserved to be set aside. The case was to be remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh on merits.”