M/s. State Bank of India, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer (TDS-I), Surat

MA 101/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3940 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & SHRI MANISH BORAD , AM. M.A. NO.101/AHD/2015 IN ITA NO.2154/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2008-09 M/S S.B.I., RBO 3, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NR. PANJRA PL, GHOD DOD ROAD, SURAT. VS. ITO )TDS)-1, SURAT. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN/TAN AAACS 8577K/SRIS0 8925A APPELLANT BY SHRI DIVYANG SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 18/3/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/03/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2154/AHD/2015 DATED 21/09/2015 FOR ASST. YEAR 20 08-09 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY SUBMITTING AS UNDER :- 1) THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT (A SSESSEE) ON 20-7- 2015. THE HEARING OF THE CASE WAS FIXED ON 21-09-20 15. IN RESPECT OF HEARINGS ON 21-09-2015, THE APPELLANT HAD APPOIN TED PROFESSIONAL PERSON FOR THE SAME BUT UNFORTUNATELY APPOINTED PROFESSIONAL HAD NOT ATTEND YOUR GOOD OFFICE, BECAU SE OF THIS M.A. NO.101/AHD/2015 IN ITA NO. 2154/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 2 HON'BLE BENCH PASSED THE EX PARTE ORDER DATED 21-09 -2015 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN LIMINE. 2) THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL WAS AGAINS T THE TREATMENT OF LTC FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING TDS, AND FOR THE SAME PURPOSE WE HAD APPOINTED PROFESSIONAL BUT DUE TO HIS UNPROF ESSIONALISM HE HAD NOT ATTEND YOUR GOOD OFFICE. 3) HOWEVER, HON'BLE BENCH PASSED THE EX PARTE ORDER DA TED 21-09- 2015 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN LIMINE BY TAKING A VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NO MORE INTERESTED TO P ROSECUTE THE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT WAS SERIOUSLY PREPARING FOR P URSUING THE APPEAL AND THERE WAS BONAFIDE REASON FOR SEEKING TH E RESTORATION. THEREFORE, DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN LIMINE, WITHOUT HEARING THE APPELLANT, IS A MISTAKE RECTIFI ABLE U/S 254 (2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 READ WITH THE PROVISO BELOW R ULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. IT IS HUMBLE PRAYER OF THE APPELLANT THAT IN ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE , THE SAID EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THE APP EAL OF THE APPELLANT BE KINDLY SET ASIDE AND THE CASE BE RE-ST ORED FOR FRESH HEARING. 2. IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITT ED THAT DUE TO ONGOING HEALTH ISSUE OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE WHO WAS HANDLING THE MATTER ORIGINALLY, NONE WAS THERE TO ATTEND THE HEARING ON 21-09-2015 NOR COULD FILE AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICA TION. NOW THE NEW AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE STATES THAT THIS WAS A BONA FIDE REASON FOR NON-ATTENDING ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND ACCORD INGLY IT IS PRAYED THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECA LLED FOR FRESH HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE SUBMIS SIONS OF LD.AR. M.A. NO.101/AHD/2015 IN ITA NO. 2154/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE OBSERVED THAT DUE TO ILLNESS, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS HANDLING THE MATTER ORIGINAL LY, COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING ON 21-09-2015 NOR COULD FILE AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. THEREFORE, ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND TH AT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-ATTENDANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 21.9.2015. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IT WILL JUST AND PROPE R TO RECALL THE EX PARTE ORDER FOR FRESH HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND WE ALLOW THE MISC. APPLICATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/03/ 2016 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 28/03/2016 MAHATA/- M.A. NO.101/AHD/2015 IN ITA NO. 2154/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 18/03/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 18/03/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 28/3/16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: