P Chandra Vardhan Reddy, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(4), Hyderabad

MA 129/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8582 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SH RI SAT B EER S INGH GO DA RA , JU DI CIA L MEMBE R AND SHR I L AXMI PR AS A D SAHU , AC COUNT ANT MEMBE R M.A. Nos. 20/Hyd/2020 & 129/Hyd/2019 (in ITA No. 85/H/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15) P. Chandra Vardhan Reddy, Hyderabad. PAN – AHTPR 2096P Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward – 15(4), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue by D. Kandi Krishna Date of hearing: 29/10/2021 Date of pronouncement: 15/11/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: Both these Miscellaneous Applications are filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 07/09/2018 in ITA No. 85/Hyd/2018, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the appeal ex-parte in-limine for non- prosecution. MA Nos. 129/Hyd/2019 & 20/Hyd/2020 S h r i P . C h a n d r a V a r d h a n R e d d y Hyd. :- 2 -: 2. As regards M.A.No. 129/Hyd/2019, on perusal of record, we find that the M.A. filed by the assessee before the ITAT on 29/11/2019 whereas the order passed by the ITAT on 07/09/2018. Therefore, the M.A. filed by the assessee is barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 254(2) of the IT Act, hence, this M.A. is dismissed as time barred. 3. As regards the M.A. No. 20/Hyd/2019, the assessee filed this MA under rule 24 of the Act wherein requested for recalling the order passed on 07/09/2018 and stated that the matter was entrusted to the auditor and he was not present before the ITAT when the case was posted for hearing on 04/09/2018 and that the case was decided by ex-parte by the ITAT. 4. Referring to the above facts, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that non-appearance before the Tribunal is neither willful nor deliberate but bona-fide, beyond the control and requested for recalling the ex-parte order under Rule 24 of ITAT rules, and hearing of the appeal on merit. The learned DR, however, has not objected to recall of the appeal. 5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We are of the view that the assessee MA Nos. 129/Hyd/2019 & 20/Hyd/2020 S h r i P . C h a n d r a V a r d h a n R e d d y Hyd. :- 3 -: was prevented by reasonable cause for not appearing before the Tribunal on the date of hearing i.e. on 04/09/2018 and, therefore, relying on the decisions in the case of Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2021] 128 Taxmann.com 314, & Rameshbhai V. Prajapati Vs. DCIT, [2021] 127 taxmann.com 674 (Ahd. – Trib.) and the judgment of the Hon’ble High court of Gujarat in the case of Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, [2021] 127 taxmann.com 244 (Gujarat), we recall the order dated 07/09/2018 passed ex-parte, under rule 24 of ITAT rules and direct the Registry to fix the appeal for hearing in the due course of time and accordingly, notice of hearing is to be issued to the parties. 6. In the result, MA No. 129/Hyd/2019 is dismissed and the M.A. No. 20/Hyd/2020 is allowed in above terms. Pronounced in the open court on 15 th November, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 15 th November, 2021. kv MA Nos. 129/Hyd/2019 & 20/Hyd/2020 S h r i P . C h a n d r a V a r d h a n R e d d y Hyd. :- 4 -: copy to : 1 Shri P. Chandra Vardhan Reddy, No 17, Amulya Homes, Near Sri Vasavi Siva Nagar, Kushaiguda, ECIL Post., Hyderabad. 2 ITO, Ward – 15(4), Hyderabad. 4 CIT(A) - 7, Hyderabad 5 Pr. CIT - 7, Hyderabad. 6 ITAT, DR, Hyderabad 7 Guard File.