Tribunal Cannot Dismiss Appeal On Merits Solely For Authorised Representative’s Improper Dress Code

By | July 22, 2026
0 Comment

Tribunal Cannot Dismiss Appeal On Merits Solely For Authorised Representative’s Improper Dress Code

Issue

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can dismiss an assessee’s appeal on merits during a virtual hearing solely because the Authorised Representative was not dressed in proper attire as prescribed by the Virtual Hearing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

Facts

  • Virtual Hearing Incident: The assessee’s appeal came up for a virtual hearing before the ITAT.

  • Dismissal Grounds: The ITAT dismissed the appeal during the virtual hearing without adjudicating the matter on its merits.

  • Reason for Dismissal: The sole ground for dismissal was that the assessee’s Authorised Representative (AR) was not wearing proper dress/attire as required by the SOP for virtual hearings.

  • Applicable Rules: Under Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, if an appellant or their representative fails to properly appear, the Tribunal must proceed to decide the appeal on merits treating it as a non-appearance, rather than summarily dismissing it.

Decision

  • Absence of Statutory Provision: There is no provision under the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, or the Income-tax Act allowing the dismissal of an appeal based on the dress code of an Authorised Representative.

  • Duty to Decide under Rule 24: In the event of a representative’s failure to present themselves properly, the Tribunal ought to have proceeded to decide the matter on its merits by treating it as a case of non-appearance under Rule 24.

  • Order Set Aside: The impugned order of the ITAT dismissing the appeal was set aside, and the appeal was restored to its original file and number for fresh adjudication on merits.

Key Takeaways

  1. Procedural Rules Cannot Override Substantive Justice: Administrative or procedural SOP guidelines (such as dress codes for virtual hearings) cannot be used as a ground to deny an adjudication on the merits of an appeal.

  2. Strict Scope of Rule 24: Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules requires the Tribunal to adjudicate the appeal on its merits even if the appellant or their representative fails to appear or is barred from appearing due to procedural non-compliance.

  3. No Statutory Disqualification for Attire: An appeal cannot be dismissed purely on technical or dress-code infractions by an Authorised Representative in a virtual hearing setting.

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Gudari Large Sized Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd.
v.
Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax
Harish Tandon, CJ.
and MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.
WP(C) No. 15124 of 2026
JUNE  25, 2026
Diganta Das, Adv. for the Petitioner. Subash Chandra Mohanty, Sr. Standing Counsel and Avinash Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Assailing order dated 14th August, 2025 passed in Gudari Large Sized Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd. v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 414/CTK/2025] by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (through virtual hearing), the writ petition has been filed. Without delving into the nuances of law pertaining to the jurisdiction exercised by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vis-a-vis the remedy by way of an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, we invited the attention of the counsel to address us on the impugned order, which admittedly does not appear to have been passed on merit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assesse is not in a proper dress as per the SOP for virtual mode.
2. Having invited the attention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department, the provisions contained in Rule 17A of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and the other relevant provisions, the learned Senior Standing Counsel in his fairness submits that in terms of Rule 24 of the said Rules, the Tribunal ought to have proceeded to decide the matter treating the non-appearance of the appellant, the petitioner herein. He fairly concedes that there is no provision for dismissal of an appeal if the Authorised Representative is not in a proper dress.
3. In view of the above, the order impugned is hereby set aside. The appeal filed before the Tribunal is restored to its original file and number. The Appellate Tribunal is requested to make endeavor to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all pending Interlocutory Application(s) shall stand disposed of.