My appeal was called on a day my counsel was in another court and the Tribunal passed an order against me without hearing anybody on my side. Can that order be recalled, and under what?
Under the proviso to rule 24, and it is expressed as a duty rather than a discretion. Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, headed 'Hearing of appeal ex parte for default by the appellant', provides that where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. The proviso then provides that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal. Rule 25 is the mirror image for a default by the respondent. What the rule does not permit is a dismissal for want of prosecution: the only course open on non-appearance is disposal on merits after hearing the other side.
Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) on 1987-08-01, reported as Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, rules 24 and 25, made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 255 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It bears on section Rule 24 ITAT Rules 1963, section Rule 27 ITAT Rules 1963, section 255, section 254(1), section 254(2), section 253, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
The distinction that decides these cases is between disposing of an appeal and dismissing it. Rule 24 authorises the first and not the second. A Tribunal faced with an empty appellant's chair is to hear the departmental representative and decide the grounds; it is not given the option of recording that nobody appeared and dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. Orders in the second form are still passed, and an appellant who receives one is not in the same position as an appellant whose grounds were considered and rejected — the order is irregular on the face of the rule, and this library carries both the High Court authority saying so and the Supreme Court authority behind it. The second point is which application to file. An appellant who missed the hearing instinctively reaches for the rectification power, because that is the application everyone knows. It is the wrong one. The proviso to rule 24 is its own remedy with its own test: did the appellant appear afterwards, and has he satisfied the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance? Nothing has to be shown to be apparent from the record. And the proviso carries no period, whereas the rectification power does — which is exactly how an appellant loses everything, by letting the rectification period run while assuming that was his route, and finding, as one appellant did before the Bombay High Court, that the application could not be entertained at all. The third point is the word 'shall'. Once sufficient cause is established the Tribunal is to set aside the ex parte order and restore the appeal; the rule does not leave that to discretion. What is discretionary is the satisfaction, and that is where the application has to do its work. An affidavit from the counsel with the other court's cause list attached, or a medical record, or proof that the notice of hearing went to a superseded address, is what turns a request into a case. A bare statement that there was a professional difficulty is not.
Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, under the heading 'Hearing of appeal ex parte for default by the appellant' and marked as substituted by the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Amendment Rules, 1987 with effect from 1 August 1987, reads: 'Where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent: Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal.' Rule 25, under the heading 'Hearing of appeal ex parte for default by the respondent' and carrying the same substitution note, provides in the same terms for the case where the appellant appears and the respondent does not. The Rules are made 'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 255 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)'. Rule 24 contains no rule 24A and prescribes no period within which an application under its proviso must be made.
Non-appearance by the appellant when the appeal is called on gives the Tribunal one course and not two. It may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. It is not given a power to dismiss the appeal for default or for want of prosecution. Where it has disposed of the appeal in the appellant's absence, the proviso obliges it, on the appellant appearing afterwards and satisfying it that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance, to make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal; the word used is 'shall'. The proviso fixes no period of its own. Rule 25 makes the same provision where the respondent is the party in default.
Not applicable — this is a statement of the text of a rule made under section 255(5). The rule's content is independently confirmed by the Bombay High Court's construction of it in the decision this library already carries, which records that in terms of rule 24 the option of dismissing an appeal for default is not available to the Tribunal.
Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppUnder the proviso to rule 24, and it is expressed as a duty rather than a discretion. Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, headed 'Hearing of appeal ex parte for default by the appellant', provides that where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. The proviso then provides that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal. Rule 25 is the mirror image for a default by the respondent. What the rule does not permit is a dismissal for want of prosecution: the only course open on non-appearance is disposal on merits after hearing the other side. This was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) and bears on section Rule 24 ITAT Rules 1963, section Rule 27 ITAT Rules 1963, section 255, section 254(1), section 254(2), section 253, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, rules 24 and 25, made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 255 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The distinction that decides these cases is between disposing of an appeal and dismissing it. Rule 24 authorises the first and not the second. A Tribunal faced with an empty appellant's chair is to hear the departmental representative and decide the grounds; it is not given the option of recording that nobody appeared and dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. Orders in the second form are still passed, and an appellant who receives one is not in the same position as an appellant whose grounds were considered and rejected — the order is irregular on the face of the rule, and this library carries both the High Court authority saying so and the Supreme Court authority behind it. The second point is which application to file. An appellant who missed the hearing instinctively reaches for the rectification power, because that is the application everyone knows. It is the wrong one. The proviso to rule 24 is its own remedy with its own test: did the appellant appear afterwards, and has he satisfied the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance? Nothing has to be shown to be apparent from the record. And the proviso carries no period, whereas the rectification power does — which is exactly how an appellant loses everything, by letting the rectification period run while assuming that was his route, and finding, as one appellant did before the Bombay High Court, that the application could not be entertained at all. The third point is the word 'shall'. Once sufficient cause is established the Tribunal is to set aside the ex parte order and restore the appeal; the rule does not leave that to discretion. What is discretionary is the satisfaction, and that is where the application has to do its work. An affidavit from the counsel with the other court's cause list attached, or a medical record, or proof that the notice of hearing went to a superseded address, is what turns a request into a case. A bare statement that there was a professional difficulty is not. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Read the order before deciding what to apply for. An order that decides the grounds after hearing the departmental representative is an ex parte order under rule 24 and the route back is the proviso. An order that simply dismisses the appeal because nobody appeared is not what rule 24 authorises at all, and this library carries the authority on that.
Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, under the heading 'Hearing of appeal ex parte for default by the appellant' and marked as substituted by the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Amendment Rules, 1987 with effect from 1 August 1987, reads: 'Where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent: Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal.' Rule 25, under the heading 'Hearing of appeal ex parte for default by the respondent' and carrying the same substitution note, provides in the same terms for the case where the appellant appears and the respondent does not. The Rules are made 'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 255 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)'. Rule 24 contains no rule 24A and prescribes no period within which an application under its proviso must be made. The matter was decided on 1987-08-01 by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text). On those facts the CBDT Circulars & Instructions held as follows. Non-appearance by the appellant when the appeal is called on gives the Tribunal one course and not two. It may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. It is not given a power to dismiss the appeal for default or for want of prosecution. Where it has disposed of the appeal in the appellant's absence, the proviso obliges it, on the appellant appearing afterwards and satisfying it that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance, to make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal; the word used is 'shall'. The proviso fixes no period of its own. Rule 25 makes the same provision where the respondent is the party in default.
Not applicable — this is a statement of the text of a rule made under section 255(5). The rule's content is independently confirmed by the Bombay High Court's construction of it in the decision this library already carries, which records that in terms of rule 24 the option of dismissing an appeal for default is not available to the Tribunal. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal."
It was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions on 1987-08-01 and is reported as Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, rules 24 and 25, made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 255 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them. A CBDT circular or instruction binds officers of the department but not the assessee and not the courts. Where a circular helps you, you may hold the department to it. Where it hurts you, it cannot override the Act or a judgment. On section Rule 24 ITAT Rules 1963, section Rule 27 ITAT Rules 1963, section 255, section 254(1), section 254(2), section 253, section 250, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. Non-appearance by the appellant when the appeal is called on gives the Tribunal one course and not two. It may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. It is not given a power to dismiss the appeal for default or for want of prosecution. Where it has disposed of the appeal in the appellant's absence, the proviso obliges it, on the appellant appearing afterwards and satisfying it that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance, to make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal; the word used is 'shall'. The proviso fixes no period of its own. Rule 25 makes the same provision where the respondent is the party in default. It arises in Appeals and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section Rule 24 ITAT Rules 1963, section Rule 27 ITAT Rules 1963, section 255, section 254(1), section 254(2), section 253, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Not applicable — statutory text. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Apply under the proviso to rule 24, not under section 254(2), where the complaint is non-appearance. The two are different applications with different tests: the proviso asks whether there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance, section 254(2) asks whether there is a mistake apparent from the record. Prove the sufficient cause with material, not assertion. An affidavit of the counsel, the cause list of the other court, a hospital record, a travel record — the proviso makes the Tribunal's duty conditional on being satisfied, and satisfaction is on evidence. Go promptly. The proviso states no period of its own, but delay is what a Tribunal will weigh when it asks whether the cause was sufficient, and an application made months later invites the answer that the appellant was not diligent. Where the Tribunal declines to recall, keep in mind that an irregular order is not a nullity: it binds until it is set aside. The library carries the decision holding exactly that, and holding that a recall application filed out of time under the rectification power could not be entertained. For a respondent who missed the hearing, use rule 25, which is in the same terms. Do not treat a request for adjournment sent to the registry as appearance. The rule speaks of the appellant not appearing in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, and a letter on the file is not an appearance. Where the appeal was disposed of on merits in your absence and the merits went against you on a point of law, consider whether the real remedy is an appeal rather than a recall; a recall restores the appeal, it does not correct the reasoning.
Still good law. The rule stands in the form substituted by the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Amendment Rules, 1987 with effect from 1 August 1987, and the text read carries that substitution note against both rule 24 and rule 25. No later amendment to either rule was found. The date on this entry is that substitution date and nothing else. The content of the rule is not left to rest on a single reading. This library already carries the Bombay High Court's decision in a writ petition of 2013 in which the court, construing this very rule, recorded that in terms of rule 24 the option of dismissing an appeal for default is not available to the Tribunal, and went on to hold that an order which was irregular for that reason was nonetheless not a nullity and bound the parties until set aside. The library also carries the Supreme Court decision holding a rule permitting dismissal for default to be beyond the appellate power, on the ground that the appellate authority is bound to dispose of the appeal on the merits on questions of fact and of law. Those two decisions are the independent confirmation of what the rule provides, and a reader who wants the authority rather than the text should go to them. Two limits are worth stating. The proviso prescribes no period within which the application to recall must be made, and nothing in the rule imports the period that governs a rectification application; whether a delay defeats an application is left to the Tribunal's satisfaction on sufficient cause. Second, the rule says nothing about what happens to the limitation for a further appeal while a recall application is pending, and nothing is asserted about it here. The Rules are made under section 255(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Whether corresponding rules have been made under the Income-tax Act, 2025, and in what terms, has not been established, and no successor is given. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Rules 24 and 25 have been read on an independently published reproduction of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which carries them with their headings, with the substitution note naming the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Amendment Rules, 1987 with effect from 1 August 1987, and with the preamble recording that the Rules are made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 255 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Department's own listing of the Rules identifies them but does not set out the text of the individual rules, and nothing in this entry is taken from it beyond confirmation that the Rules are carried there. The 'decided on' date is the 1987 substitution date printed with the rule, and is not the date the Rules were made. THE CROSS-CHECK. The rule's content does not rest on that single reading. The Bombay High Court, in the decision this library already carries, quotes the effect of rule 24 directly in holding that the option of dismissing an appeal for default is not available to the Tribunal. That is a court's own reproduction of the rule's effect, published independently of the source read here, and it is the reason this entry states the position as confidently as it does. The Supreme Court decision on dismissal for default under the corresponding provision of the 1922 Act is carried separately and is not restated. WHAT WAS NOT DONE. Section 255 has not been read; it is named because the Rules are made under sub-section (5) of it. Sections 253, 254(1) and 254(2) are named because the prose distinguishes the recall power in the proviso from the rectification power and refers to the appeal itself; none of them has been read, and nothing about their content is asserted beyond that contrast. Section 250 is named for the first appellate stage the prose contrasts. Rule 27 is named because this library already carries a separate entry on it and a reader working on Tribunal procedure will want it. No rule 24A exists in the text read. Whether rules corresponding to these have been made under the Income-tax Act, 2025 has not been established, and no successor is given here. For an appeal relating to a tax year beginning before 1 April 2026 the 1961 Act and the Rules made under it continue to govern, so rule 24 remains the operative provision for the great majority of appeals now pending before the Tribunal, and an ex parte order passed in one of them is to be dealt with under its proviso. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Non-appearance by the appellant when the appeal is called on gives the Tribunal one course and not two. It may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. It is not given a power to dismiss the appeal for default or for want of prosecution. Where it has disposed of the appeal in the appellant's absence, the proviso obliges it, on the appellant appearing afterwards and satisfying it that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance, to make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal; the word used is 'shall'. The proviso fixes no period of its own. Rule 25 makes the same provision where the respondent is the party in default.
TaxSphere, “Statutory position — rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963: the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits when the appellant does not appear, it may not dismiss it for default, and the proviso gives it the power to recall”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-rule-24-itat-rules-1963-disposal-on-merits-when-the-appellant-does-not-appear-and-the-power-to-recall/ (validity last checked 2026-09-23)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My appeal is pending before the Tribunal and recovery of the demand is going on. Can the Tribunal stay recovery when no section gives it that power?
I won before the CIT(A) but lost the jurisdiction point. Can I raise it in their appeal?
The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed my client's appeal on merits but rejected his challenge to the reopening. The department has appealed to the Tribunal and my client filed no cross-objection. Can he still argue that the reassessment was without jurisdiction?
How long do I actually have to appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal? I have always worked on sixty days from receipt of the order.
