M/s Options, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

MA 10/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2785 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHORE KUMAR KABRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 10/HYD/15 (IN ITA NO. 1501/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) OPTIONS, HYDERABAD APPLICANT (PAN AABFO 0247G) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, RESPONDENT WARD 7(1), HYDERABAD. APPLICANT BY : SHRI KISHORE KUMAR KABRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJAT MITRA DATE OF HEARING : 06/02/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/02/2015 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD, IN ITA NO. 1501/HYD/2013 DATED 16/07/2014, DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX- PARTE IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 2. THE LEARNED AR REFERRING TO THE REASONS FOR NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING AS STATED IN THE M.A. SUBMITTED THAT NON AT TENDANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING WAS OUT OF INADVERTENCE AND NOT BEC AUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS DISINTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L. THE ASSESSEE STATED IN THE M.A. THE REASON FOR NOT ATTENDING BY THE COUNSEL ON THE DATE OF HEARING NO NOTICE WAS SERVED EITHER ON ASSE SSEE OR ON AR AND TO THIS EFFECT ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AFFI RMING THE REASONS FOR MA NO. 10/HYD/15 OPTIONS, HYDERABAD 2 NOT ATTENDING ON THE DATE OF HEARING MENTIONED IN M .A. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED REVISED FORM 36 MENTIONING THE NEW ADDRESS. H E, THEREFORE, REQUESTED FOR RECALLING THE EX-PARTE ORDER, AND HEA RING THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THE LEARNED DR ALSO HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ORDER IS RECALLED AND APPEAL IS HEARD ON MERIT. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE MI SCELLANEOUS PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT, ASSESSEE HAS STATED, NO ONE COULD REPRESENT IT ON THE DATE OF HEARING AS NOTICE OF HEARING WAS NO T RECEIVED EITHER BY ASSESSEE OR BY ITS AR. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF RECOR D, IT IS SEEN, NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON TWO O CCASIONS TO THE ADDRESS MENTIONED BY ASSESSEE IN APPEAL MEMO. HOWEV ER, ON BOTH OCCASIONS THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED BACK TO THE REG ISTRY UNSERVED. WHEN THE LD. AR WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY, HE SUBMITTED ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTED TO A NEW ADDRESS AND REVISED FORM NO. 36 HA S BEEN FILED MENTIONING THE NEW ADDRESS. IT IS SEEN FROM THE REC ORD, THE REVISED FORM NO. 36 MENTIONING THE NEW ADDRESS WAS FILED IN THE REGISTRY ONLY ON 04/02/2015. THIS CARELESS AND NEGLIGENT ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE APPRECIATED. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE INCLINED TO RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 16/07/2014 PASSE D IN ITA NO. 1501/HYD/2013 AND POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 03/06/2015 . AS THE AFORESAID DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL WAS ANNOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT IN PRESENCE OF BOTH THE COUNSELS, NO SEPARATE NOTIC E OF HEARING IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES. REGISTRY IS D IRECTED TO ISSUE NOTICES/ORDERS/ETC. TO THE NEW ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COL. NO. 10 & 11 OF REVISED FORM 36 FILED BY ASSESSEE. MA NO. 10/HYD/15 OPTIONS, HYDERABAD 3 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/02/2015. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 KV COPY TO:- 1) M/S OPTIONS,C,5-9-12/1, GROUND FLOOR, SAMRAT COMPLEX, SAIFABD, HYDERABAD. 2) ITO, WARD - 7(1), HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A)-18, HYDERABAD. 4) THE CIT-5/6, HYD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A .T., HYDERABAD.