K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.150 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1389 OF 2008 The CIT-14, Mumbai )..Appellant Versus M/s.Hanumandas Madanlal )..Respondents ---- Mr.D.K.Kanwal for the appellant. Mr.Pankaj R.Toprani for the respondents.w ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 4.3.2009. PC 1. Income-tax Appeal No.1389/2008 by the assessee was not on board. It arises from the same order. By consent of the parties, the said appeal alongwith Income-tax Appeal No.150 of 2009 which is on board taken up for hearing. Heard forthwith. 2. The grievance of the appellant is that they had sought for time before the Tribunal which was rejected and the appeal was heard ex-parte. 3. We find from the order that inspite of the appellant not being present, the appeal was heard. It is nodoubt true that considering rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, there is a power to the Tribunal to proceed ex-parte in the absence of : 2 : the appellant. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and partly rejected the same. Both the assessee and revenue are in appeal. By consent, parties agree that impugned order can be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for hearing the parties afresh. 4. Considering the above, impugned order is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for hearing the parties afresh. Considering this order, learned Counsel for the assessee states that the application for setting aside ex-parte order will not be pressed by him and will be withdrawn. Appeal disposed off accordingly. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)