HARISH KUMAR HUF, CHENNAI V. ITO NCW 4(4), CHENNAI

MA 121/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9217 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M ABHISHEK
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHE NNAI . , . , & BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO. 121/CHNY/2019 [IN I.T.A. NO. 3009/CHNY/2018] ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 HARISH KUMAR HUF, C/O. VICTOR GRACE & CO., SPENCER PLAZA, O-704, 769, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 002. [PAN:AADHH6741J] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 4(4), CHENNAI. ( ) /APPELLANT) ( *+) /RESPONDENT) ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. ABHISHEK, C.A. *+) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURESH PERIASAMY, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.02.2021 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY MEANS OF PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASS ESSEE SEEKS TO RECALL THE EXPARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN I.T.A. NO. 3009/CHNY/2018 DATED 21.05.2019 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT 2013-14 BY STATING THAT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 29.04.2019, THE PETITIONERS AR WAS PRESENT IN ANOTHER COURT ROOM AND THEREFORE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE BENCH. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE EXPARTE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL CONTAINS AN ERROR APPARENT ON RECORD THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF SHARES IS M.P M.PM.P M.P. .. . NO. NO. NO. NO. 121 121121 121/ // /CHNY CHNYCHNY CHNY/1 /1/1 /19 99 9 2 BOGUS IN NATURE, THE LD. COUNSEL PRAYED FOR RECALLI NG THE EXPARTE ORDER FOR ADJUDICATION AFTER AFFORDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECTED TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT REPRESENTING ITS CASE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING AS THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT IN ANOTHER COURT ROO M BY ACCEPTING THE PETITION, WE RECALL OUR ABOVE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 21.05.2019 AND POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 23.02.2021, WHICH WAS INF ORMED THROUGH VC, NO SEPARATE NOTICE WOULD BE ISSUED TO BOTH THE PART IES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MP FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2021 IN CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (G. MANJUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, 19.02.2021 VM/- * 1 /COPY TO: 1. ) /APPELLANT, 2. *+) / RESPONDENT, 3. 2 ( )/CIT(A), 4. 2 /CIT, 5. * /DR & 6. ' /GF.