Mr. Govardhan Kacharulal Oza, Belgaum V. ITO Ward - 2 (1) Belgaum, Belgaum

MA 10/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1914 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S R KOKATE I T P

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 10 /PNJ/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 332 /PNJ/2013) (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2009 - 10 ) MR. GOVARDHAN KACHARULAL OZA 179, CCB - 32, RENUKA NIVAS, SANTASANA ROAD, BELGAUM PAN: AAGPO6449R (APPLICANT ) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1) BELGAUM. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.R. KOKATE, ITP RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUMAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 23/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/05/2014 O R D E R PER: D.T.GARASIA (JM) THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DT.20.3 .2014 PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE ORDER EX PARTE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN 38ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AS NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT THEIR SISTER IN LAW EXPIRED ON 15.03.2014 , THE ENTIRE FAMILY WAS IN OBSERVING THE MOURNING. HENCE, THERE WAS A COMM UNICATION GAP WITH THE TAX PRACTITIONER ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING. DUE TO THIS REASON NO BODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR NON ATTENDING ON THE DATE OF HEARING. DURING THE LAST HEARING MY REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED AND HAS SUBMITTED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING ALONG WITH OTHER EVIDENCES WHICH IS NOT CONSIDERED. 2 . M.A NO.10/PNJ/2014 (A.Y.2009 - 10) ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 332/PNJ/2013 THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION BE ALLOWED AND THE CASE BE HEARD ON MERIT. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SAME. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. SINCE THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED EX PARTE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE RECALL THE APPEAL. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL IN DUE COURSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER P RONOUNCEMENT IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.05.2014. S D / - S D / - ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 2 3 .5.2014. P.S. - *PK* COPY TO: ( 1 ) APPELLANT ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER