, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC CHANDIGARH !', # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM M.A. NO. 128/CHD/2019 IN ./ ITA NO. 852/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 Y. D. SOLUTIONS, 2133, SECTOR 38-C, CHANDIGARH. VS THE ITO, WARD 4(5), CHANDIGARH. ./ PAN NO: AABFY0386N / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHURANA, CA # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA, ADDL. CIT $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 20.01.2021 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.01.2021 HEARING CONDUCTED VIA WEBEX $%/ ORDER BY THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSES SEE, PRAYS FOR RECALL OF EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 IN ITA 852/CHD/2 018 WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE RELYING LARG ELY ON THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2018 FOR 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ASSESSEE' S OWN CASE ITSELF I.E. ITA 435/CHD/2017. HOWEVER, SINCE LACK OF EFFECTIVE OPP ORTUNITY IS PLEADED ON THE GROUNDS OF INADVERTENT MISTAKE OF THE COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR RECALL. THE LD. AR RELYING ON THE APPLICATION DULY SUPPORTE D BY HIS OWN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED THAT ON THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING I.E. 29.05.2019 THE COUNSEL WHO M.A. 128/CHD/2019 IN ITA 852/CHD/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 WAS HANDLING THE CASE HAD COME FROM DELHI AND REACH ED ITAT CHANDIGARH IN TIME, BUT INADVERTENTLY HE ATTENDED THE DB INSTEAD OF SMC BENCH. AFTER REALIZING THE MISTAKE, DID RUSH TO THE SMC BENCH BU T BY THAT TIME, THE SMC BENCH HAD CONCLUDED. RELYING UPON THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI DAVINDER SINGH, PARTNER OF THE COMPANY AFFIRMING THE FACTS AS WELL AS OF THE COUNSEL HIMSELF IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE T HE SMC BENCH WAS NOT DELIBERATE OR INTENTIONAL ON THE PART OF THE LD. AR . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT SINCE THE NON-APPEARANCE WAS NOT DE LIBERATE OR INTENTIONAL, THE SAID EX-PARTE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED SO AS TO PROVID E THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2. THE LD. SR.DR CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE PRAY ER HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 IS RECALLED AND THE APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PAR TIES BEFORE THE BENCH CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS SET OUT HEREINABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE NON- APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. AC CEPTING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REMAINING UNREPRESENTED ON THE DATE OF HEARING AS BONAFIDE AND TRUE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS RECALLED E XERCISING THE POWERS AS VESTED BY PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963 . SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM M.A. 128/CHD/2019 IN ITA 852/CHD/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANSAL HOUSING CONSTRUCTION LTD. 274 ITR 131 (DEL). 3.1. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO OR IGINAL POSITION AND THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 17.03.2021 FOR WHICH DATE NO NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES AS THE DATE WAS ANNOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRESENCE OF TH E PARTIES VIA WEBEX.. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21 ST JANUARY,2021. SD/- ( !' ) (DIVA SINGH) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR