JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition, the Revenue has sought to review of the order dated September 16, 2011, as passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 66 of 2004 whereby, a co-ordinate Bench proceeded to dismiss the appeal considering it to have abated for failure on the part of the appellant to bring the legal representatives of the sole respondent on record. 2. The order impugned, in its entirety, reads as under : "This appeal is pending since the year 2004 and no process fees is being paid for issuance of notice to the respondent-assessee. In the meantime, this appeal was also dismissed for want of prosecution and in non-compliance with the order earlier though the appeal was disposed of on March 13, 2008, yet till date no process fee is paid for issuance of notice to the respondent-assessee. The appeal is pending in default since 2004 onwards till date. That apart, the sole assessee (respondent herein) has also died way back in the year 2005 and this fact was also taken note by this court in its order-sheet dated July 25, 2005. No efforts are made to bring his legal representatives on record, though more than six years have been passed. Therefore, no question of issuing any notice to the sole respondent who died in the year 2005 as no application was made to bring his legal representatives on record. Appeal, therefore, abates for not bringing the legal representatives of the sole respondent, Badri Prasad. The appeal thus fails and is dis missed as having become abated." 3. In brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter could be noticed in the following : In relation to the proceedings concerning the original assessee, Mangi Lal Bhatia (since deceased), under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the notices were allegedly not issued to all his legal representatives but the Assessing Officer ("the AO") proceeded to complete the assessment under the order dated December 27, 1990. In challenge to the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the basic contention urged before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jodhpur ("the CIT(A)"), was that notices having not been issued to all the legal representatives of the original assessee, Mangi Lal Bhatia, the proceedings suffered from fundamental and incurable infirmity; and were wholly without jurisdiction. In challenge to the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the basic contention urged before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jodhpur ("the CIT(A)"), was that notices having not been issued to all the legal representatives of the original assessee, Mangi Lal Bhatia, the proceedings suffered from fundamental and incurable infirmity; and were wholly without jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld such a contention and while allowing the appeal, annulled the assessment by his order dated February 26, 1993. Then, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order dated February 26, 1993, was dismissed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ("the Tribunal"), by its order dated January 7, 2004. The Tribunal affirmed the views of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and held that the proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction for want of notice to all the legal representatives of the deceased assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue preferred the appeal under section 260A of the Act, being D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 66 of 2004 that was admitted by this court on December 3, 2004, on the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, initiation of proceedings under section 148 by issuing notice to only one of the legal representatives of the deceased Mangi Lal Bhatia without issue notices to other legal representatives was valid initiation of proceedings ? 2. In case the aforesaid question is answered in the negative whether the completed assessment in such event becomes a nullity ?" 5. In the memo of appeal as initially filed in this court, the party-respondent was described as under : "Late Shri Mangilal through L/H Badri Prasad Bhatia C/o Radha Krishan Mangilal, Jaisalmer." 6. The notices for hearing of the appeal were issued and it transpired that the said Shri Badri Prasad Bhatia, who was on record as the legal representative of the original assessee, Mangi Lal, had also expired. Then the appellant moved an application (I. A. No. 241 of 2005) with reference to the provisions of Order 22, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure on November 22, 2005, seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the late Shri Badri Prasad Bhatia as the respondents. 7. Notices on the application for substitution of the legal representatives so moved were ordered to be issued on November 22, 2005. 7. Notices on the application for substitution of the legal representatives so moved were ordered to be issued on November 22, 2005. Thereafter, the matter was being processed for service on the proposed legal representatives but, when the notices were received unserved and the appellant failed to put in the requisites within time, as per the force of the peremptory order dated March 13, 2008, the appeal came to be dismissed. However, such dismissal was set aside by the order dated November 24, 2010, as passed in Restoration Application No. 03208 of 2009. 8. The appeal, restored, as noticed above, further remained pending for want of service on the proposed legal representatives and again, for consistent defaults of the appellant as regards put in the requisites, the matter was again placed before the court on September 16, 2011, when the order impugned came to be passed, dismissing the appeal as having abated. 9. This petition seeking review has been filed by the appellant-Revenue with the submissions, inter alia, that the observations as made in the order dated September 16, 2011, are not in conformity with the record of the case. It is submitted that the original assessee, Shri Mangi Lal, had, in fact, died even earlier and the said Shri Badri Prasad Bhatia was on record as his legal representative; and when Shri Badri Prasad Bhatia also expired, an application had indeed been moved for substitution of his legal representatives. It is submitted that the notices on such application were to be filed but, in the given status of record, it could not have been concluded by the court that the appeal had abated for not moving of the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the sole respondent. So far as filing of the notices is concerned, it is submitted that, of course, there had been a default on the part of the appellant but that had been for inadvertent and bona fide mistake; and for such a default, the appeal could not have been dismissed as abated. 10. In this petition for review, notices were ordered to be issued on April 26, 2012. The learned counsel, Mr. Vipul Singhvi, has put in appearance for the non-petitioners, who are, in fact, the proposed legal representatives in the application moved in Appeal No. 66 of 2004. 11. Opposing the prayer for review, the learned counsel, Mr. 10. In this petition for review, notices were ordered to be issued on April 26, 2012. The learned counsel, Mr. Vipul Singhvi, has put in appearance for the non-petitioners, who are, in fact, the proposed legal representatives in the application moved in Appeal No. 66 of 2004. 11. Opposing the prayer for review, the learned counsel, Mr. Vipul Singhvi, appearing for the non-petitioners, submitted that in any case, the appeal as filed in this matter remains totally bereft of the merits because all the legal representatives of the original assessee were not served with the notice under section 148 of the Act; and for want of such notice, the proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the non-petitioners, no useful purpose would be served with review and recall of the order dated September 16, 2011, as passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 66 of 2004. 12. Having considered the matter in its totality, we are clearly of the view that the contentions as urged by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners are not relevant, so far as the subject-matter of the present review petition is concerned. Herein, the core question is as to whether the impugned order dated September 16, 2011, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record and thus, calls for review. In our view, it does. 13. A bare look at the impugned order dated September 16, 2011, makes it clear that the learned co-ordinate Bench proceeded to consider the appeal as having abated for the legal representatives of the sole respondent having not been brought on record. The observations have been made even to the effect that the appellant-Revenue had not moved any application seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the sole respondent. It is but clear that while passing the aforesaid order dated September 16, 2011, the facts got overlooked that the appellant-Revenue had indeed moved an application seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the respondent, Badri Prasad, way back on November 22, 2005, and that the matter was being processed upon the said application only; and the notices were ordered to be issued on November 22, 2005, to the proposed legal representatives. The observations in the order dated September 16, 2011, are also indicative that the said Badri Prasad Bhatia was himself taken to be the sole assessee though he was on record only as the legal representative of the original assessee, Mangi Lal. In any case, the appeal, in the given status of record, could not have been considered as having abated and, hence, the order impugned dated September 16, 2011, is required to be recalled. 14. Of course, it is noticed that there had been defaults on the part of the appellant where the requisites for service of notice to the proposed legal representatives were not put in, and we might have considered the effect of this aspect of the matter but now, when the learned counsel, Mr. Vipul Singhvi, has put in appearance on behalf of the proposed legal representatives, of course, in this review petition, there does not appear any reason to enter into this aspect of the matter any more. 15. However, it is considered appropriate and, hence, observed that so far as the prayer seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the sole respondent, Badri Prasad Bhatia, is concerned, it remains to be examined and considered in appeal. The appearance on behalf of the non-petitioners in this petition could only be considered as made on behalf of the proposed legal representatives. In other words, it would remain open for the non-petitioners herein to raise all their objections in regard to the application seeking substitution in the appeal; and the question as to whether they are to be substituted in the appeal, shall be examined in the appeal on its own merits. Needless to add that further processing of the appeal shall also depend on the order to be passed on the application seeking substitution of the legal representatives. 16. Subject to the observations foregoing, this review petition is allowed. The impugned order dated September 16, 2011, is recalled. Income Tax Appeal No. 66 of 2004 shall stand restored to its number. The proposed legal representatives in the appeal shall be considered as having been served with appearance of the learned counsel, Mr. Vipul Singhvi, on their behalf. Office to proceed accordingly. *******