Thanga Pandian, Tirunelveli V. ACIT, Tirunelveli

MA 130/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6884 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M. A. NO. 130/MDS/2011 (IN ITA NO. 356/MDS/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR :2002-03 SHRI THANGA PANDIAN, NO. 42/2, RAJAJI STREET, MELAPALAYAM, TIRUNELVELI-627 005. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-II, TIRUNELVELI. (PAN AERPT0421R) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.356/MDS/2011 DATED 12-05-20 11 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL REPRESE NTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. M.A. NO.130/MDS/2011 2 3. THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CW T REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTING THAT HIS COUNSEL WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DATE OF HEARING DUE TO COMMUNI CATION GAP ABOUT THE NOTICE OF HEARING AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REPRE SENTED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 12-05-2011. THE LD. JR. STANDING COUNSEL DID NO T RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. WE ARE CONV INCED THAT DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING. HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 12-05-2011. THE APPEAL IS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 19-10-2011. NO NOTICE OF HEARING NEEDS TO BE ISSUED AS THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 05-08-2 011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 05 TH AUGUST, 2011. H. COPY TO: APPLICANT/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE