M/s S Satyanarayana Raju & Co, Visakhapatnam V. The ACIT Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam

MA 1/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8393 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T LUCAS PETER
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMUEL NAGADESHI
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

M.P. NO.1/VIZ/2012 S. SATYANARAYANA RAJU & CO., VSK P. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO. 1 /VIZ/201 2 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.156/VIZAG/2009) ASSESSME NT YEAR : 200 5 - 0 6 S. SATYANARAYANA RAJU & CO. VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1) VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AASFS 6181N APPELLANT BY: SHRI SAMUEL NAGADESHI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T. LUCAS PETER, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 12 .04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.04.2012 ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PREFERRED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE WITH A REQUEST TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.6.2010 WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DATE OF HEARING WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BY HIS EMPLOYEE WHO RECEIVED THE HEARING N OTICE. THEREFORE, THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DATE OF HEARING WA S NOT INTENTIONAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REQUESTED TO A FFORD ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO DEFEND HIS CASE AFTE R RECALLING OF THE ORDER. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS STRONGLY OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR DESPITE VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL H AS DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERIT AND THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE O F HEARING WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED, THE ORDER SHOULD NOT BE RECALLE D. 2. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE R IVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON THE DATE F IXED, THE REASONS FOR HIS ABSENCE WAS EXPLAINED BUT IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A NY EVIDENCE. WE M.P. NO.1/VIZ/2012 S. SATYANARAYANA RAJU & CO., VSK P. 2 HOWEVER, OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEES. WE ACCORDINGL Y, RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.6.2010 BUT IT SHOULD BE SUBJECT T O PAYMENT OF COST OF ` . 2000/- WHICH IS TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT IN W HICH TRIBUNAL FEES ARE BEING DEPOSITED. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO AFORESAID PAYMENT OF COST. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.04.2012 SD/ - SD/ - (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 13 TH APRIL, 2012 COPY TO 1 SHRI S. SATYANARAYANA RAJU & CO., 51 - 8 - 40, BEHIND BOC LTD., SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM 3 THE CI T, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE CIT (A) , VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM