Meena Dhall, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

MA 13/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9752 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.10/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO.975/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) AKHIL DHALL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 2551, URBAN ESTATE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, PHASE I, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AIZPD7165J M.A.NO.11/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO.976/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SUNITA DHALL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 2551, URBAN ESTATE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, PHASE I, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ABPPD2273A M.A.NO.12/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO.977/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) GAUTAM DHALL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 2549, URBAN ESTATE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, PHASE I, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAOPD9523D M.A.NO.13/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO.978/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) MEENA DHALL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 2549, URBAN ESTATE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, PHASE I, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ABDPD9852H AND 2 M.A.NOS.14 & 15/CHD/2018 IN ITA NOS.979 & 980/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11) AANCHAL DHALL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 2549, URBAN ESTATE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, PHASE I, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AIKPD1405G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI SARBJIT GARG, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDER KANTA, DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.09.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE FILED FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. DATED 21.2.2017 DISMISSING ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEALS FOR NON- PROSECUTION VIDE A COMMON ORDER. 2. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE HEARING OF THE CA SES COULD NOT BE ATTENDED ON THE SAID DATE SINCE THE CO UNSEL WAS INDISPOSED AND HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED BED REST DURING THE SAID PERIOD. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR NON-ATTENDANCE AS POINTED OUT I N THE REVISED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED ON DATED 7 TH JULY 2018 AS UNDER : IN THIS REGARD, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE UNDERSIGNED WAS SUFFERING FROM SEVERE BACK PAIN AND, THEREFORE, HE VISITED HIS FAMILY DOCTOR FOR CHECK UP AND TREATMENT ON 15.02.2017. 3 2. THE DOCTOR RECOMMENDED X-RAY AND PRESCRIBED SOME MEDICINE. ON 18.02.2017, THE UNDERSIGNED VISITED THE DOCTOR AGAIN WITH X-RAY. THE DOCTOR OBSERVED AND RECOMMENDED AS UNDER:- 'ON X-RAY EXAMINATION IT IS FOUND THAT HE IS SUFFERING FROM PIVD. HE IS ADVISED STRICT BED REST FOR FIVE DAYS.'' 3. THAT SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING FELL WITHIN THIS PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS FOR WHICH DOCTOR HAD RECOMMENDED STRICT BED REST, THE UNDERSIGNED HAD TO WRITE IN THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT, THAT DUE TO REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL, HE WON'T BE IN A POSITION TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING. 4. THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION MAY KINDLY BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO THIS EXTENT WITH ALL OTHER CONTENTS REMAINING THE SAME. 3. COPY OF MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION OF THE DOCTOR WAS A LSO FILED AS EVIDENCE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON THE SAI D DATE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A GOOD CASE AND WAS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE APP LICANTS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.2.20 17 BE RECALLED. 4. THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SAME. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CAS E. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE APPLICANTS WERE PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING TO PROSECUTE THE APPE ALS. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT TO MEET THE EN DS OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE APPLICANTS SHOULD BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. EXERCISING T HE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL PROVIDED IN THE PROVISO TO RU LES 24 4 AND 25 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963, TO SET ASIDE AN EX-P ARTE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL IN CASE WHERE AN ASSES SEE DEMONSTRATES REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE, A ND CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS IN THE PRESENT CA SE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR RECALLI NG THE ORDER FOR FRESH HEARING, WHICH WE HEREBY DO. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE HEARING OF ALL THE APPEALS ON 5.11.2018, WHICH WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. NO SEPARATE NOTICE BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S FILED BY THE APPLICANTS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 *RATI*/PK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, 5. THE DR ITAT, CHANDIGARH