M/s. Swapnil Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Indore V. The ACIT-2, Indore

MA 13/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2988 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAWKA

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.G.GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A .M. M.A. NO. 13/IND/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 322/IND/2013) A.YS. 2009-10 M/S.SWAPNIL CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT.LTD, INDORE PAN AADCM6601R ..APPLICANT V/S. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, INDORE. ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI C.P.RAWKA, C.A. REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 8 . 5.201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8 .5.201 5 ORDER PER GARASIA, J.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE A CT IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE TR IBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 21.08.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE APPOINTED DATE DUE TO CERTAIN UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. 2 2. DURING HEARING, SHRI C.P.RAWKA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND THE DA TE FIXED FOR HEARING, AS THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY SOME OTHER P ERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE WHO WAS NOT LOOKING AFTER THE OFFICE WORK. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE EX PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.08.2013 MAY BE RECALLED. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE URGED THAT L ENIENT VIEW MAY BE TAKEN AND THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES TO BE VIGILANT IN FUTURE. HOWEVER, THE LD. SR. DR CONTENDED THAT IT WAS THE D UTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO REMAIN PRESENT ON THE APPOINTED DATE, T HEREFORE, NO LENIENCY IS REQUIRED, MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE AS SESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE AR GUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL. UNDER THE FACTS NA RRATED HEREINABOVE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NA TURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SUBSTANTIAL CAUS E OF JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL ON TECHNICALITIES ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED THE REASONS OF NON-APPEARANCE AS NARRATED ABOVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A PAYER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THEREFO RE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, CO NSEQUENTLY, 3 THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.08.2013 IS RECALLED WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IT WILL BE TREATED AS LAST OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS THESE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED ON SO MANY DATES AT THE REQUESTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO REFIX THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 8.5.2015 . SD/- SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :8 TH MAY , 2015. CPU*