SHRI BHIMSEN PRASAD, Bhopal V. The ITO 1(2), Bhopal

MA 10/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4043 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.10/IND/2016 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.712/IND/2014 A.Y. : 2009-10 SHRI BHIMSEN PRASAD, BHOPAL. ITO, 1(2), BHOPAL VS APPLICANT RESPONDENT APP LICANT BY : SHRI ASHISH GOYAL AND SHRI N. D. PATWA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, DR O R D E R PER D.T.GARASIA, J.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE AC T IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIBU NAL VIDE ORDER DATED 09.11.2015 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DATE OF HEARING : 04 .0 3 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 .0 3 .2016 SHRI BHIMSEN PRASAD, BHOPAL VS. ITO, 1(2), BHOPAL M. A. NO. 10/IND/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 2 2 FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE APPOINTED DATE DUE TO CERTAIN UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTA NCES. 2. DURING HEARING, SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE DUE TO SEVERE ILLNESS O F THE APPLICANT, THE NOTICE OF HEARING COULD NOT BE HANDE D OVER/COMMUNICATED TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE NEEDFUL. A N AFFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT IS ALSO FILED. THE ASSESSEE REQUEST ED THAT THE EX- PARTE ORDER DATED 09.11.2015 MAY BE RECALLED. AN AF FIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT IS ALSO FILED ON RECORD. LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE URGED THAT LENIENT VIEW MAY BE TAKEN AND THE ASSESS EE UNDERTAKES TO BE VIGILANT IN FUTURE. HOWEVER, THE L D. DR CONTENDED THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO R EMAIN PRESENT ON THE APPOINTED DATE, THEREFORE, NO LENIEN CY IS REQUIRED, MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS A WARE OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. UNDER THE FACTS NARR ATED HEREINABOVE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NA TURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SUBS TANTIAL SHRI BHIMSEN PRASAD, BHOPAL VS. ITO, 1(2), BHOPAL M. A. NO. 10/IND/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 3 3 CAUSE OF JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL ON TECHNICALITIES ESP ECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THE REASONS OF NON-APPEARAN CE AS NARRATED ABOVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN A FFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, CONSEQUENTLY, T HE EX- PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 09.11.2015 IS REC ALLED WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IT WILL BE TREATED AS LAST OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS THIS APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON SO MANY DA TES AT THE REQUESTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REGISTRY IS DIREC TED TO REFIX THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 04 TH MARCH, 2016. SD/- (B.C.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 4 TH MARCH, 2016. SHRI BHIMSEN PRASAD, BHOPAL VS. ITO, 1(2), BHOPAL M. A. NO. 10/IND/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 4 4 CPU*