KRISHNA THAKUR, V. ITO 7(2)(1),

MA 121/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0941 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: K R LAKSHMI NARAYANAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 121/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 885/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) SMT. KRISHNA C. THAKUR INCOME TAX OFFICER - 7(2)(1) C/O. RICO APPLIANCES P. LTD. AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. R OAD 95/207, DSP ROAD, DADAR VS. MUMBAI 400020 MUMBAI 400014 PAN - AACPT3433E APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY: SHRI K.R. LAKSHMINARAYANAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI O.P. SINGH DATE OF HEARING: 06.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.09.2013 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. BY THIS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE SEEKS RECALL OF TH E EXPARTE ORDER DATED 13.02.2013 PASSED BY THE ITAT A BENCH, MUMBAI. 2. IT MAY BE NOTICED HERE THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 09.02.2012 BY THE ASSESSEE. BY VIRTUE OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CUM-NOTI CE IT WAS INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPEAL IS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 11.02.2013. DESPITE A GAP OF ONE YEAR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHOOSE TO GIVE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF THE COUNSEL NOR DID THE COUNSEL CHOOSE TO INFORM THE PA RTY ABOUT THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BEFORE ACCEPTING THE CASE. NEVERTHEL ESS, K.K. RAMANI, ADVOCATE, SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT BY AN APPLICATION DATE D 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR ADVOCATE WHO REPRESENTS TH E ABOVE CLIENT IS BUSY IN ANOTHER COURT. THE BENCH NOTICED THAT NEITHER THE P ARTY NOR THE SO CALLED OTHER ADVOCATE, WHO IS TO APPEAR OR HIS JUNIOR, IF ANY, REPRESENTED THE MATTER FIXED BEFORE US. DESPITE THAT, SINCE IT IS THE FIRS T POSTING, THE BENCH MENTIONED IN THE ORDER SHEET THAT NOBODY HAS FILED POWER OF ATTORNEY AND IT WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT THAT HEARING IS ADJ OURNED TO 13.02.2013. MA NO. 121/MUM/2013 SMT. KRISHNA C. THAKUR 2 EVEN ON THAT DATE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE. IT IS ALSO EQUALLY RELEVANT TO NOTICE THAT NEITHER SHRI K.K. RAMANI, A DVOCATE NOR THE SO CALLED ANOTHER ADVOCATE, AS MENTIONED IN MR. K.K. RAMANIS PETITION, FILED ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS PRESUMED THAT NOBODY IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGL Y THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION UNDER RULE 24 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 SEEKING RESTORATIO N OF THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR N ON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S HRI K.R. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, ADVOCATE APPEARED AND FILED POWER OF ATTORNEY DULY SINGED BY HIM. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THOUGH SHRI K .K. RAMANI, ADVOCATE HAS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT, EVEN AT THIS STA GE HE HAS NOT SIGNED THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. IN FACT THE FIRST APPLICATION SE EKING ADJOURNMENT ON 11.02.2013 WAS SIGNED FOR K.K. RAMANI AND NOT BY THE ADVOCATE HIMSELF WHICH SHOWS THE CASUAL ATTITUDE OF THE COUNSELS WHO SEEKS TO BE ON RECORD. NOW THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED SHE WAS IGNORANT OF THE PROCE DURES AND SHE HAS REQUESTED HIM TO APPEAR IN THE MATTER AND SHE WAS U NDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE COUNSEL WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE SITUATION. THEREFORE, SHE DID NOT CHOOSE TO APPEAR UNDER THE BONA FIDE IMPRESSION THA T THE COUNSEL SHRI K.R. LAKSHMINARAYANAN WOULD APPEAR. BUT AT THE SAME TIME , IN THE APPLICATION, SHE SUBMITS THAT DUE TO OVERSIGHT ON HER PART SHE F AILED TO SUBMIT THE LETTER OF AUTHORITY ALONGWITH THE SAID LETTER REQUESTING F OR ADJOURNMENT. IT IS A PECULIAR SITUATION WHERE THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION W AS MOVED ON THE LETTER HEAD OF K.K. RAMANI, ADVOCATE WHO DID NOT TAKE RESP ONSIBILITY OF FILING THE APPLICATION OR FILING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. TIME A ND AGAIN THE MUMBAI BENCHES HAVE TRIED ON THEIR PART TO BRING TO THE NO TICE OF THE COUNSELS THAT WITHOUT POWER OF ATTORNEY THEY SHOULD NOT EITHER RE PRESENT OR SEEK ADJOURNMENT AND BEING A SEASONED COUNSEL HE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN CARE TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT IN THE PROPER FORMAT BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE COUNSELS, WHO HAVE PUT IN NUMBER OF YEARS, ARE RELU CTANT TO LEARN THE PROCEDURES, AND THE PARTIES SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR T HEIR ACT. UNDER THESE MA NO. 121/MUM/2013 SMT. KRISHNA C. THAKUR 3 CIRCUMSTANCES WE ACCEPT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANC E ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. HOWEVER, THE COUNSEL IS DIRECTED TO PAY A NOMINAL COST OF ` 1,000/- FOR HIS NEGLIGENT ATTITUDE. SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF C OST OF ` 1,000/- ON OR BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST T HE APPEAL FOR FINAL HEARING ON 10.10.2013. SINCE THE DATE IS ANNO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO THE PARITIES IS HEREBY DISPEN SED WITH. REGISTRY SHALL TAKE CARE TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER THE PAYMENT IS MA DE ON OR BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 AS OTHERWISE IT SHOULD BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH. 4. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 13, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT VII, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.