Kundanben S.Patel L/H of late Suresh Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-9, Ahmedabad

MA 109/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8529 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DIPAK SONI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . ! ' ,#$ # % BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.109/AHD/2012 (SS) ./ I.T.(SS)A. NO.24/AHD/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 01.04.95 TO 21. 9.95) LATE SHRI SURESH A.PATEL THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE KUNDANBEN S PATEL UTSAV BUNGALOW 1-2, SUJAN SOCIETY ESIC STAFF COLONY SHREYAS TEKRO, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD ! ! ! ! / VS. THE DY.CIT CIRCLE-9 AHMEDABAD ' #$ ./() ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AEFPP2019F ( '* / // / APPLICANT ) .. ( +,'* / RESPONDENT ) '* - # / APPLICANT BY : SHRI DIPAK SONI +,'* . - # / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL, SR.D.R. !/ . 0$ / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 13/07/2012 1 2 . 0$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.7.12 #3 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED ON 01/06/20 12, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 10/0 5/2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD IN IT(SS)A NO.24/AHD/08 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95) AND THE RELEVANT SUBMISSION IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- MA NO.109/AHD/2012 IT(SS)A NO.24/AHD/20 08 LATE SHRI SURESH A.PATEL VS. THE DY.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.85 TO 31.3.95 & 01.4.95 TO 21.9. 95 - 2 - 1.0 THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY SHRI SUR ESH A PATEL, THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE APPE LLANT) IN THE MATTER OF ORDER DATED 10 TH MAY, 2011 FRAMED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS) A NO. 24/AHD/2008 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD REFER RED TO ABOVE. THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON 18 TH MAY, 2012. 2.0 THE APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AND MAK ES A PRAYER THAT THE ORDER FRAMED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED FOR FRESH HEARING AND THEREAFTER THE AP PEAL BE DISPOSED OFF ON THE MERITS. 2.1 THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED ORDER DATED 10 TH MAY, 2011 FRAMED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE STATED APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE ORDER WAS R ECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON 18 TH MAY, 2012. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT HAS B EEN DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRESUMING THA T THE APPELLANT WAS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSING THE APPEAL. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PL ACED UPON DECISION IN CASE OF CIT V/S MULTI PLAN INDIA (PVT.) LTD REPORTED AT 38 ITD 320. 2.2 THE APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT SH RI SURESH A PATEL HAD EXPIRED ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2011 AND ALL HIS THREE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN SETTLED IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT EITHE R THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAD DENIED TO DELIVER THE REGISTERED A/D POST BECAUSE I T WAS IN NAME OF SHRI SURESH A PATEL WHO WAS NO MORE WHEN THE REGISTERED A/D POS T HAD COME FOR DELIVERY OR THE REGISTERED A/D POST COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELIVER ED BECAUSE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS THE SOLE PERSON IN AHMEDABAD HAD GONE TO THE NATIVE PLACE AND THE HOUSE WAS UNDER LOCK AND KEY. THE LEG AL REPRESENTATIVE, SMT. KUNDANBEN S PATEL HAD ALSO TRAVELLED TO USA ON 6 TH MAY, 2011 TO MEET HER CHILDREN AFTER DEATH OF HER HUSBAND. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THEREFORE THE HEARING COULD NOT BE ATTENDED ON DATE OF HEARING. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT ON AN EARLIER O CCASION THE HON'BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAD HEARD THE APPEAL AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL A PAPER BOOK WAS PLACED ON THE RECORDS OF THE HON'B LE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND NECESSARY SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE. 2.3 IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THEREFOR E THE ORDER FRAMED ON 10 TH MAY, 2011 BE KINDLY RECALLED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO THE ATTENDANCE WERE MADE BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHICH SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS SERIOUS ABOUT TH E APPEAL PREFERRED BY IT. 2.4 THE APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT IT HAD ALWAYS WANTED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL SERIOUSLY AND THEREFORE EACH A ND EVERY GROUND WAS PRECISELY TAKEN. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DECISION RELI ED UPON BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD REPORTED AT 38 ITD 320 IS NOT APPLICABLE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. MA NO.109/AHD/2012 IT(SS)A NO.24/AHD/20 08 LATE SHRI SURESH A.PATEL VS. THE DY.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.85 TO 31.3.95 & 01.4.95 TO 21.9. 95 - 3 - 3.0 THE APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT TH E ORDER FRAMED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHEREUNDER TH E APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION BE RECALLED AND T HE MATTER BE HEARD ON THE MERITS. 3.1 IT IS NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT FOR THIS ACT OF KIND NESS THE APPELLANT SHALL ALWAYS REMAIN GRATEFUL TO THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ASSESSEES FAILURE TO APPEAR B EFORE THE ITAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE I TAT BENCH A AHMEDABAD PASSED IN IT(SS)A NO.24/AHD/2008 DATED 10/05/2011 A ND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 09 /10/2012 IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE LD.AR MR.DEEPAK SONI THAT HE SHALL PRO MPTLY COMPLY WITH THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L, SO THAT THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED EARLIEST POSSIBLE. BOTH PARTIES WERE INFORMED IN COURT AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DISPENSED WITH THE CONSEN T OF BOTH PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ' ) ( ) #$ ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/ 7 /2012 40..!, .!../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS MA NO.109/AHD/2012 IT(SS)A NO.24/AHD/20 08 LATE SHRI SURESH A.PATEL VS. THE DY.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.85 TO 31.3.95 & 01.4.95 TO 21.9. 95 - 4 - #3 . +5 6#52 #3 . +5 6#52 #3 . +5 6#52 #3 . +5 6#52/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '* / THE APPLICANT 2. +,'* / THE RESPONDENT 3. 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7() / THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. 5:; +! , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;< =/ / GUARD FILE. #3! #3! #3! #3! / BY ORDER, ,5 + //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / ( ( ( ( ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 13.7.12(COPIED MATTER) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 23.7.12 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 27.7.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27.7.12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER