Boycott of ITAT Bench by Tax Consultants Association & Bar Association - appeal decided ex-parte - appellant faces consequence - matter not to be remitted
ONE of the arguments made by the appellant before the High Court was that the appeal had been decided ex parte by the ITAT.
The appellant admitted that a notice was received by them but on account of boycott call given by the Associations namely the Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association and Jaipur Tax Tribunal Bar Association regarding an allegation against a member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, who is the author of the order of the ITAT in impugned order, the arguing counsel in their case who also happened to be a signatory of the resolution, being Secretary of Jaipur Tax Tribunal Bar Association, did not appear for the hearing.
Nonetheless, it is their submission that the Bench of ITAT was aware of the boycott call given and, therefore, it ought not to have proceeded to decide the said appeal ex-parte and, therefore, the order is not proper and is without application of mind and is in violation of principles of natural justice and the matter deserves to be remitted to ITAT to decide the questions afresh in accordance with law.
The High Court held -
++ We are not convinced with the argument advanced by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the members of the association being on strike still passing order behind the back of the assessee's representative is in violation of principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ex. Captain Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr.: (2003)2 SCC 45 , deprecated the strike call/ boycott call by the Lawyers and held it to be illegal and unjustified. It expressed in strong terms that Lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. It further observed that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients are under legal duty to attend the Courts/Tribunals irrespective of strike or boycott. Lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequence by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. Strike or boycott cannot be countenanced in the present day situation and real sufferer is the society- public at large.
++ In the light of the judgment (supra), we are not convinced with the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant on this submission and particularly in view of the fact that an adjournment was already granted by the Bench on the request made on behalf of the appellant. Thus, we see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the ITAT deciding the appeal ex-parte as alleged and thus not convinced with the submission of counsel for the appellant that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ITAT for re-hearing or an opportunity be afforded to the assessee for fresh hearing.
See
Please also see:
1. ITAT Bar Association boycotts Member - DDT 2089 - 22.04.2013
2. ITAT Bar Association withdraws Boycott of Member - DDT 2100 - 08.05.2013
3. Bar vs Bench - DDT 2261 - 30.12.2013
4. Bar vs Bench - Contempt against ITAT Lawyer discharged DDT 2371 - 10.06.2014