M.Muruganandam, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 128/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3592 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: K MEENAKSHISUNDHARAM

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 12 8/MDS/2015 [IN I.T.A.NO. 2882 /MDS/201 4 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 M. MURUGANANDAM, NO. 28, BESANT AVENUE ROAD, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 020. [PAN: A A EPM0717E ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BUSINESS CIRCLE IV, CHENNAI 600 0 34. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. MEENAKSHISUNDHARAM, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH , JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 0 9 . 1 0 .201 5 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 16 . 1 0 .201 5 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BY MEANS OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO GET RECALLED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 2882 /MDS/201 4 DATED 2 7 .0 4 .2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL IS AGED 75 YEARS WAS SUFFERING FROM CARDIAC, ORTHO, ETC. DUE TO HEART PROBLEM, HE WAS RECOMMENDED FOR SURGERY DURING MARCH 2014 TO DECEMBER, 2014. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE AND THE AUDITOR APPOINTED MR. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE AS THEIR COUNSEL TO REPRESENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HE COULD NOT M.P. NO . 12 8 /M/ 1 5 2 REPRESENT ON THE DAY OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 27.042015 DUE TO NON - FURNISHING OF EVIDENCES CALLED FOR BY THE AR . THEREFORE, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY KINDLY BE RECALLED AND POSTED FOR HEARING. 2 . THE LD. DR DID NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEA RD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. BY CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NO N - REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. WHILE ACCEPTING THE PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE RECALL OUR EX - PARTE ORDER DATED 2 7 .0 4 .2015 AND FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 26 . 11 .2015. SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ENDORSED HAVING NOTED THE DATE OF HE ARING IN THE ORDER SHEET, NO SEPARATE NOTICE WOULD BE ISSUED TO BOTH PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 16 TH O F OCTOBER , 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER ( V. DURGA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 16 . 1 0 .201 5 VM/ - M.P. NO . 12 8 /M/ 1 5 3 / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.