IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.222 OF 2005 Kent Trading Agencies Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer,Ward 6(3), Mumbai. ..Respondent Mr.F.V. Irani with Mr. A.K.Jasani for the Appellant. Mr.A.D.Kango with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 24th March,2008. PC : 1. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the counsel was not available and therefore sought adjournment. That was rejected and the appeal was disposed of though at the relevant time on behalf of the appellant Mr.M.P. Mehwala was present. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the order should be set aside and the opportunity of being heard be given to the appellant. 2. It may be true that as the concerned Advocate was busy in another court and was not available, the Tribunal was right in proceeding with the matter and not granting adjournment. 3. After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for hearing the matter afresh by giving full opportunity to the parties. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)