JUDGMENT 1. This appeal gives rise to the following substantial question of law : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant as not maintainable in view of rules 19 and 20 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 ?" 2. Since the aforesaid question of law is short, by the consent of the parties, this appeal itself is heard and disposed of at this stage. 3. It is not in dispute that the appeal being ITSA No. 112/JP/2001 was preferred by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated September 25, 2001, to the extent the additions were made in the trading account. It is also not in dispute that on the date when the aforesaid appeal came up for consideration before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, neither the assessee nor his representative was present. 4. It may be noted here that notice for hearing of appeal as required under rules 19 and 20 was given to the appellant-assessee. 5. Rules 19, 20 and 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, read thus : " 19.(1) The Tribunal shall notify to the parties specifying the date and place of hearing of the appeal and send a copy of the memorandum of appeal to the respondent either before or with such notice. (2) The issue of the notice referred to in sub-rule (1) shall not by itself be deemed to mean that the appeal has been admitted. 20. (1) In an appeal under sub-section (1) of section 253, in fixing the date for the respondent to appear and answer to the appeal, a reasonable time shall be allowed for the necessary communication with the Commissioner through the proper channel and for the issue of instructions to an authorised representative to appear and answer on behalf of the respondent. (1) The text of this rule relates to rule 21-Ed. 24. (1) The text of this rule relates to rule 21-Ed. 24. Where, on the day fixed for hearing or 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." 6. Having considered the aforesaid three provisions, we are unable to comprehend the view of the Tribunal that the assessee's appeal was not maintainable in view of rules 19 and 20 of the Rules. Surely the appeal preferred by the assessee was competent under section 253 of the Income-tax Act. How, in the circumstances the Tribunal could hold that the assessee's appeal from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not maintainable when the appeal lay from the said order. The Tribunal misread and misapplied rules 19 and 20 of the Rules of 1963, in holding that the assessee's appeal was not maintainable. If for any reason, the assessee was not being represented on the date of hearing, the Tribunal could have proceeded for hearing of the appeal ex parte provided in rule 24 but that was not done. The appeal has not been heard on the merits and the Tribunal erroneously held that the assessee's appeal is not maintainable in law. 7. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated October 9, 2002, in so far as the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, being No. ITSA No. 112/JP/2001, as not maintainable. Appeal No. 112/JP/2001 is restored to the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on April 30, 2007. No costs. *******