By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAY 05, 2018: THE issue is - Whether Tribunal being a quasi judicial authority should not close their eyes and grant preferential treatment to a party, on the verge of making others suffer. YES is the verdict.

Facts of the case:

The Assessee, an individual, had preferred the present petition opposing the action of Tribunal in passing rectification order by considering the additional documents, which were never part of the record placed before the ITAT Bench, as pleaded by the assessee. This action of Tribunal was also opposed as the order was passed by way of an early hearing and that too without informing the assessee in appropriate way. On the other hand, the Department was of the opinion that the Tribunal could not be faulted for fixing an early date of hearing. As far as additional documents are concerned, the Department opined that a reference to these documents was found in the other documents which were part of the record, and hence its maintenability could not be challenged.

High Court held that,

++ as far as interpretation of early hearing as merely administrative order is concerned, it is seen that the same Tribunal in case of Olympia Paper & Stationery Stores, had oberved that: "....the judicial orders, by the concerned Bench of the Appellate Tribunal and not administrative orders, have to be passed for expeditious and out of turn hearing of any appeal or application. It is one of the most cardinal rule of administration of justice that a party should be heard by any Court or Tribunal in the manner he has approached the Court/Tribunal and that he should never be preferred or selected over other litigants/adversaries from the long pending queue unless and until, there are strong compelling and justifiable reasons for bestowing a preferential treatment to a party for hearing him on priority and out of turn basis...." Therefore, the Tribunal cannot neglect the judicial principle and call the early hearing as a mere administrative order;

++ as far as the placing on record of the additional documents is concerned, there is considerable controversy as to whether in fact a statement was made, as is urged by the Revenue and contested on behalf of the assessee. This Court is of the opinion that irrespective of what is apparent even if the documents were produced and in the possession of the ITAT, the question of their being part of the record of the lower appellate authority or the AO did not arise. That is the reason why in the first instance, a complete copy of the said agreement was sought from the assessee. Now there is no dispute that a complete copy is with the Revenue. Nevertheless, the proper procedure prescribed by law in this case has to be followed. In the given circumstances, this naturally means that the Revenue has to move a formal application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Procedure Rules to justify the bringing on record of these additional documents in its possession. In view of the same, the order passed by Tribunal is set aside.

(See 2018-TIOL-830-HC-DEL-IT)