JUDGMENT 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. 2. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned counsel for the Appellant. 3. This appeal is directed against an order dated 12th February, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dismissing the Appellant's appeal, ITA No.176/CTK/2016, for the Assessment Year 2010-11, for non-prosecution. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that according to the ITAT, a notice of hearing was sent to the Appellant on 12th January, 2018 for the hearing on 12th February, 2018. The notice was returned by the postal authority with the remarks that the addressee had left. The ITAT said that there was no information regarding the change of address of the Appellant. Accordingly, the ITAT dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 5. In the present memorandum of appeal, the Appellant has averred that the impugned order of the ITAT was never communicated to it. It was only when the Assessing Officer pressed upon the Appellant for recovery of the demand, that the Appellant enquired from the Registry of the ITAT and applied for a certified copy on 7th January, 2021. The Appellant claims that the certified copy of the order was made available to it on 20th January, 2021. 6. Mr. Ray refers to Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules (ITAT Rules) and submits that the proviso thereto, which envisages that an Appellant can approach the ITAT for recall subsequent to the ex parte disposal of the appeal would not apply in the instant case. According to Mr. Ray, it is only where the appeal is disposed of on merits that the proviso comes into play. In support of this submission, he relies on the decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Chenniappa Mudaliar, AIR 1969 SC 1068 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (2013) 263 CTR (Bom) 262. 7. The above submission has been considered. At the outset, the Court would like to note that the impugned order is just one paragraph. It is plain that the ITAT has dismissed the Appellant's appeal for non-prosecution. 8. 7. The above submission has been considered. At the outset, the Court would like to note that the impugned order is just one paragraph. It is plain that the ITAT has dismissed the Appellant's appeal for non-prosecution. 8. Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules read thus: '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 authorized 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.' 9. The very object of the proviso to Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules is to enable the recall of an ex parte order where the Appellant is able to show sufficient cause for his nonappearance. This is consistent with the rule of natural justice that no appeal is disposed of without hearing the Appellant. The last part of the proviso mandates that ITAT 'shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal.' 10. The Court is unable to interpret the proviso to Rule 24 in the restricted way as suggested by Mr. Ray. The Court notices that the decision in Chenniappa Mudaliar (supra) was rendered at a time when Rule 24 did not provide for restoration of the appeal. This is evident from the opening line of para 7 of the judgment, which reads as under: 'Now although Rule 24 provides for dismissal of an appeal for the failure of appellant to appear, the Rules at the material time did not contain any provision for restoration of the appeal.' 11. Consequently, the said decision is of no assistance to the Appellant. 12. As regards, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra), there a rectification order had been passed ex parte by the ITAT under Section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was in that context that an interpretation was sought to be adopted to Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules. 13. 12. As regards, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra), there a rectification order had been passed ex parte by the ITAT under Section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was in that context that an interpretation was sought to be adopted to Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules. 13. In the present case, however, the impugned order was not in a ratification application but a dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. The Bombay High Court does not appear to have noticed the fact that the decision in Chenniappa Mudaliar (supra) was delivered at a time when Rule 24 did not provide for restoration of the appeal. Consequently, this Court is not persuaded by the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court. 14. Accordingly, this Court concludes that it is open to the Appellant to invoke the proviso to Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules and file before the ITAT an application to recall the impugned ex parte order and seek restoration of the appeal. 15. This Court clarifies that it should not be understood to have expressed any view on the merits of such application to be filed by the Appellant in terms of the proviso to Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules. 16. This Court accordingly dismisses the present appeal in the aforesaid terms. 17. As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.