The Income Tax Department, against the order of the CIT Appeal, approached the Income Tax Tribunal and the matter was fixed for hearing on 25-11-1997, when none represented the Department and the Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the assessee, was pleased to decide the appeal, against the Department vide order, dated 6-12-1997. Hence this appeal, through which the answer to the following question has been solicited:-- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Departmental appeal, merely on the basis of absence of the Departmental Representative?"
2. As argued by the counsel for the appellant, we are not convinced that as per rule 20(2) of the ITAT Rules, 1981, the Tribunal has no power to dismiss the second appeal before it, for the non- prosecution or to decide it ex parte. However, in the present case, the above question is A irrelevant, because despite the absence of the appellant's representative, the appeal by the Tribunal has been decided on merit and no error or the proposition of law arising out of such decision has been propounded before us. Resultantly, this appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.