CHIRAG PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO),WARD -3(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

MA 18/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Chirag Patel, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal due to the non-appearance of his representative. The appellant contended that his representative was present and that the Tribunal's record was incorrect. The Tribunal reviewed its records and found discrepancies in the dates and facts presented by the appellant's counsel. Despite these findings, the Tribunal decided to recall the order and schedule a fresh hearing, emphasizing the principle of not letting the assessee suffer due to the conduct of his counsel.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314680 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVAN LIMBASIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHITKUMAR SHAH

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.18/Ahd/2025 in I.T.A. No.1846/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Chirag Patel, B-26, Chandan Park, Nr. Saivihar Society, Somatalav, Gujarat-390025 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara [PAN No.AVGPP6413P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nishitkumar Shah, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 14.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee has been filed the present Miscellaneous Application against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 08.01.2025. 2. In the present Miscellaneous Application is has been contended that the order was passed with an erroneous observation that “none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case, nor any adjournment was sought”. It has been contended in the present Miscellaneous Application that the Authorised Representative of the assessee C.A. Nishitkumar Kiritbhai Shah was before the Bench on the scheduled date of hearing. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be recalled since it suffers from a mistake apparent from the record. M.A No.18/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 1846/Ahd/2024) Chirag Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2012-13 - 2– 3. On going through the relevant log books of the Members and the office records we find there is a specific noting that there was non- appearance on behalf of the assessee and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of non-appearance. Further, even when the matter was called out for hearing, no Counsel on behalf of the assessee stood up to argue the matter. Further, we observe that in Para 1 of the Miscellaneous Application, the Counsel for the assessee stated that when the matter was heard on 16.12.2024 the matter was kept for the next business date on 06.02.2025, however, the order was pronounced on 08.01.2025 without awaiting the schedule date. Again, we are of the considered view that this statement of the Counsel for the assessee in the Miscellaneous Application is wholly misplaced and incorrect. On going through the order sheet, it is observed that the matter was kept for orders on 16.12.2024 and the assertion of the Counsel for the assessee that the matter was kept for next business date i.e. 06.02.2025 is factually erroneous. Accordingly, on going through the contents of the Miscellaneous Application, it is found that the Miscellaneous Application suffers from serious factual errors and infirmities since firstly, incorrect dates have been mentioned at Para 1 of the Miscellaneous Application and secondly, from the officer records, it is evident that on the schedule date of hearing, the Counsel did not argue the matter when the matter was called out for hearing and neither any adjournment application was filed and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed with a specific noting that “none had appeared on behalf of the assessee”. M.A No.18/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 1846/Ahd/2024) Chirag Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2012-13 - 3– 4. However, the Bench is of the considered view that the assessee should not made to suffer on account of the conduct of the Counsel for the assessee and accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is hereby recalled and kept for fresh hearing, in the interest of justice. The Registry is directed to schedule the matter in due course. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 06/05/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 06/05/2025 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 30.04.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 30.04.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 05.05.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .05.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 06.05.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 06.05.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… "