M/s Sudalagunta Hotels Limited, Tirupathi V. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Tirupati, Tirupathi

MA 1/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2801 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMAKRISHNA BANDI
• Assessee Lawyers: K J D SRINIVAS

Judgement Text

MA NO.1 OF 2015 SUDALAGUNTA HOTELS LTD TIRUPATHI PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT.ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEM BER M.A. NO.1/HYD/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1674/HYD/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S SUDALAGUNTA HOTELS LTD, TIRUPATI PAN: AADCS 1460 N VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1) TIRUPATI (APP LICANT ) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.J.D. SRINIVAS FOR REVENUE : SHRI RAMAKRISHNA BANDI, DR DATE OF HE ARING : 13/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 /03/2015 O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ITA NO.1674/HYD/201 2. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ITA NO.1674/HYD/2 012 WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 7.8.2014 AND THE AR OF THE AS SESSEE COMPANY WAS PRESENT FOR HEARING BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH. HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE BENCH DID NOT ALLOW THE AR TO REPRESENT THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO POWER OF ATTOR NEY IN HIS FAVOUR TO REPRESENT THE CASE. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE MA NO.1 OF 2015 SUDALAGUNTA HOTELS LTD TIRUPATHI PAGE 2 OF 3 CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SENT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DIRECTLY TO THE HON'BLE BENCH AND THERE HAS BEEN SO ME DELAY FOR THE SAME TO HAVE REACHED THE BENCH. 3. IT WAS EXPLAINED IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION THAT THE DELAY IN REACHING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY BEING SUBMI TTED BEFORE THE BENCH WAS STATED AS INADVERTANT AND DUE TO THE MARRIAGE OF THE CHAIRMANS SON AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL PRE-OCCUPA TION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL DEFAUL T NOR WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE. THE LD COUNSEL PRAYED FOR RECALL OF THE APPEAL AND TO DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION AND ALSO RULE 24 OF THE I.T. RULES. FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR UN DER APPEAL, RULE 24 HEARING OF APPEAL EX PARTE FOR DEFAULT BY THE APPELLANT READ AS UNDER: 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 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 WA S SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR HIS NON-APPEARANCE, WHEN THE MA NO.1 OF 2015 SUDALAGUNTA HOTELS LTD TIRUPATHI PAGE 3 OF 3 APPEAL WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL SHAL L MAKE AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE EX PARTE ORDER AND RESTORING THE APPEAL. 5. APPLYING THE ABOVE RULE AND SINCE THE COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SATISFIED THE BENCH THAT HE HAD SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, WE SET ASIDE THE EX-PARTE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL. THE REGISTRY MAY POST THE CASE ON SUITABLE DATE AND INFORM THE PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH MARCH, 2015. S D/ - S D/ - (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 25 TH MARCH, 2015. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE DEPUTY CIT, CIRCLE-2(1), 2ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHA VAN, KT ROAD, TIRUPATI. 2. M/S. SUDALAGUNTA HOTELS LTD., NO. 209, HOTEL MAYUA, TP AREA, TIRUPATI. 3. THE CIT (A) GUNTUR 4. THE CIT TIRUPATI 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER