M/s Hansa Electricals, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

MA 107/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6601 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA KANTA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 274; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO. 107/CHD/2016 (IN ITA NO.818/CHD/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S HANSA ELECTRICALS VS. CIT(A)-2 NEAR VISHKARMA TEMPLE, LUDHIANA (PUNJAB) MILLER GANJ, G.T. ROAD LUDHIANA, PUNJAB PAN NO. AAAFH3457 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. AJAY JAIN REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 25/01/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/02/2019 ORDER THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILE D UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE ASSESSEE PRAYING FOR RE CALL OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER DT. 26/07/2016 PASSED BY COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 81 8/CHD/2016 PERTAINING TO 2007-08 A.Y. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIO N WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING TIME. MR. AJAY JAIN, CHARTERED ACC OUNTANT WAS PRESENT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IN THE PRESENT MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATION ADJOURNMENT ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN GR ANTED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH STARTING RIGHT FROM 10/02/2017 REQUESTING FOR TIME ON THE GROUNDS THAT DOCUMENTS ARE STILL NOT PROVIDED. IT IS SEEN THAT ON ALMOST 10 DIFFEREN T OCCASIONS ADJOURNMENT HAVE BEEN SOUGHT. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO RE JECT THE SAME AND DECIDE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AFTER HEARING MR. A.JAIN, CA. 3. THE ASSESEE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION PRAYS FOR RECALL OF THE AFORESAID EX-PARTE ORDER DISMISSING ITS APPEAL IN LIMINI ON THE GROUND S OF NON REPRESENTATION. IN THE APPLICATION FIXED ON 26/07/2016 IT IS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESEE FIRM HAVING TWO PARTNERS SHRI. HANS RAJ KAPOOR AND SHRI. RAKESH KAPOOR R/O D ELHI COULD NOT PARTICIPATE BEFORE THE ITAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SHRI HANS RAJ KAP OOR SUFFERED FROM NEURO PROBLEMS AND HAD BEEN IN COMA SINCE THEN AND THE OTHER PARTNER WAS TRAVELLING OUT OF THE TOWN ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN THE RELEVANT DETAILS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR THE CLAIM MADE QUA THE ILL NESS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2 FOR READY REFERENCE, RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE IN THE MISC. APPLICATION PRAYING FOR RECALL ARE EXTRACTED HERE UNDER: 4.. (A). (B) SH. HANS RAJ KAPOOR IS AN ACTIVE WORKING PARTNE R AND LOOKING AFTER THE AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS ALONGWITH THE SUPERVISION & CONTROL OF ACC OUNTS & TAXATION MATTERS OF THE FIRM. SH. H.R. KAPOOR IS SUFFERING FROM NEURO PROBLEM AND WAS ADMITTED FOR NEURO SURGERY ON 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 IN MAX HOSPITAL SAKE, NEW DELHI AND IS IN COMA SINCE THE DATE OF DISCHARGE. (C) THE OTHER PARTNER SH. RAKESH KAPOOR S/O H.R. KA POOR IS NORMALLY OUT OF THE TOWN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. 4. LD. SR. DR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS WHETHER SHE HAS ANY OBJECTION TO THE RECALLING OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER WH EREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON REPRESENTATION. 5. THE LD. SR. DR CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD STATED THAT SHE HAS NO OBJECTION TO RECALL OF THE ORDER IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. REJECTING THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE LD. AR SE EKING TIME TO PLACE REQUISITE INFORMATION WHEN IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE APPLICATIO N MOVED PRAYING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER ITSELF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BEEN FILED. ON THIS FOUN DATIONAL DAY OF THE ITAT ON THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF 78 YEARS OF ITS ILLUSTRIOU S FUNCTIONING GUIDED BY THE MOTO OF SULABH NYAY SATVAR NYAY TO WHICH NISPAKSH WAS AD DED ON ITS PLATINUM JUBILEE CELEBRATION RECOGNIZING THE ABIDING FOUNDATIONAL BE DROCK OF THE INSTITUTION THE FRIVOLOUS REQUEST MADE BY THE LD. AR WAS REJECTED AS I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS REFERRED TO HEREIN ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAVING SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED ITS BONAFIDE FOR NON REPRE SENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF NEED NO LONGER BE INDULGED FOR A DATE OF HEARING FO R ARGUING THE MISC. APPLICATION AS IT IS SEEN THAT SUFFICIENT CAUSE ADMITTEDLY HAS BEEN P LEADED IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF FOR REMAINING UNREPRESENTED FOR REASONS BEYOND ITS CONT ROL BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH ON THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING. ACCEPTING THE EXPL ANATION OFFERED IN THE APPLICATION FILED SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS EVIDENCE OF HOSPITALIZ ATION ETC. FILED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION ITSELF EXERCISING THE POWERS VESTED BY PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963, THE IMPUGNED EX-PARTE ORDER IS RECALLED. SUPP ORT IS DRAWN FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANS AL HOUSING CONSTRUCTION LTD. 274 ITR 131(DEL). THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEA L FOR HEARING ON MERIT ON 06/03/2019 FOR WHICH DATE NO NOTICE OF HEARING IS TO BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES AS THE SAID DATE WAS ANNOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRES ENCE OF THE PARTIES. 7. AS A RESULT MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 27/02/2019 AG/ RAVI(HYD) COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR