1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1197 OF 2009 Simplex Industries, Mumbai ...Petitioner. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Vipul Joshi with Sameer G. Dalal, advs. For the Petitioner. Mr.Abhay Ahuja, adv. For the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 13th July , 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 Grievance of the petitioner is that when the appeal came up for hearing, adjournment was sought. That was very first time when the appeal had come up for hearing. 3 It is then submitted that they filed miscellaneous application as counsel for the respondents had been to attend the conference. Application for adjournment was made 7 days earlier. That was also not considered. Again the matter was heard without counsel appearing for the respondent. On that day only junior appeared. 2 4 It is now settled law that the party can not be held responsible for stay or order prejudicial passed for the act of his lawyer if the party had taken steps in engaging lawyer unless the conduct of the party was such as would result in Tribunal arriving at the conclusion that the party was delaying proceeding. In the instant case, case is not such a case. In these circumstances, in our opinion, ends of justice would meet if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored back to the Tribunal for hearing appeal on merits. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Tribunal to hear the appeal afresh and dispose it off on merits. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)