was admittedly not done. However, it is contended that the order having been passed without hearing the petitioner is an order in breach of principles of natural justice. In support, Mr. Subramaniam also placed reliance on this decision of this Court in Executors of the Estate of Keshavdev R. Ganeriwala vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)-3 Mumbai and anr. (Income Tax Appeal No.1472/2007) dated 15 July 2008 wherein this Court in appeal set aside the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant was not heard when the Tribunal passed the order being appealed against. It is submitted that on the basis of the above order the Tribunal be directed to hear the petitioner on merits of its appeal after withdrawing its order dated 22 January 2009. In this case, the petitioner was given an opportunity for personal hearing and he sought an adjournment which was granted and on the adjourned date of hearing (which was as per his request) the petitioner chose not to attend the hearing. Therefore, in the present facts the decision of this Court in Executors of the Estate of Keshavdev R. Ganeriwala (supra) is inapplicable. Moreover, the original order of the Tribunal on merits is dated 22 January 2009.The petitioner has moved an application for rectification on 5 January 1992. The reliance placed upon the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the two sons of the petitioner for the purposes of rectification is untenable as the order in respect of the two sons was passed on 31 October 2009 i.e. much after the order dated 22 January 2009 passed by the Tribunal in petitioner's case. This by itself would not establish any error apparent on record warranting any rectification application. Further the issue of excessive penalty being imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, is not an issue raised in its memorandum of appeal. Moreover, the revenue
