Nathi Lal Gupta, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 123/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9701 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMONA SEN
• Assessee Lawyers: C L ARORA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A NO.123/DEL/2011 (ITA NO.3535/D/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI NATHI LAL GUPTA, 61/13A, RAMJAS ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 33 (2), NEW DELHI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI C.L. ARORA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUMONA SEN, DR O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: VIDE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED AS ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS THE RECALL OF THE EX PARTE ORDER DATED 03.02.2011, PASS ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.3535/DEL/2010. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED I N LIMINE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PUT IN APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 03.0 2.2011. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT RETURNED UNS ERVED. IT WAS, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT I NTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL WAS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 3. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL; THA T THE RECORD CLERK IN THE MA NO.123/DEL/2011 2 OFFICE OF THE COUNSEL PROCEEDED ON LEAVE TO HIS HOM E TOWN IN DISTT SULTANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH DUE TO THE ILLNESS OF HIS PARENTS AND , AS SUCH, COULD NOT INFORM THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL FIXED BY THE TRIBUNAL; THAT OTHERWISE THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD DE FINITELY HAVE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL; THAT THE COUNSEL O THERWISE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS FIXED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND, AS SUCH, WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM ATTENDING THE HE ARING; THAT THE FAULT OF THE RECORD CLERK OF THE COUNSEL SHOULD NOT BECOME THE C AUSE FOR DENIAL JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE; AND THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED AND A N OPPORTUNITY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE FOR SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI C.L. ARORA, COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N. 5. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 03.02.2011, WHEN T HE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. THEREFORE, WE RECALL OUR AFOREMENTIONED OR DER AND RESTORE ITA NO.123/DEL/2011 TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER. THE APPEAL WILL NOW BE LISTED FOR HEARING ON 21.02.2013. NO FRESH NOTICE SHALL ISSUE AS THIS DATE WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.1 2.2012. SD/- SD/- [J.S. REDDY] [A.D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 21.12.2012. DK MA NO.123/DEL/2011 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES