IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) .. M.P. NOS. 132 & 134/MDS/2011 (IN I.T (SS) A. NOS. 55 & 76/MDS/2007) BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 1.4.90 TO 31.3.2000 & 1.4.2000 TO 4.5.2000 M/S MANI & MONEY LTD., 39, BAZULLAH ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. PAN : AAACM6893N (PETITIONER) V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I(3), CHENNAI 600 006. (RESPONDENT) M.P. NO. 133/MDS/2011 (IN I.T (SS) A. NO. 56/MDS/2007) BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 1.4.90 TO 31.3.2000 & 1.4.2000 TO 4.5.2000 SHRI S. SUBRAMANIAN, 19, ELDAMS ROAD, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI 600 018. PAN : AABPS1686F (PETITIONER) V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I(3), CHENNAI 600 006. (RESPONDENT) PETITIONERS BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RANGARAJAN JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL M.P. NOS. 132 TO 134/MDS/11 2 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEES FOR RECALL OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 24.6.2010 OF T HIS TRIBUNAL. AS PER THE ASSESSEES, THE ORDERS WERE PASSED EX PARTE SINCE ASSESSEES WERE UNABLE TO ENTER APPEARANCE DUE TO REASONS BEYO ND THEIR CONTROL. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. APPEALS O F THESE ASSESSEES AND CROSS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT WERE I NITIALLY DISMISSED IN LIMINE BY ORDER DATED 31 ST JANUARY, 2008 AND 18 TH JANUARY, 2008, RESPECTIVELY. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEES FILED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS SEEKING RECALL SINCE THE OR DERS WERE PASSED EX PARTE . BASED ON SUCH MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS, THE TRIB UNAL RECALLED ITS ORDERS DATED 31 ST JANUARY, 2008 AND 18 TH JANUARY, 2008, RESPECTIVELY AND REPOSTED THE CASE FOR FRESH HEARIN G. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING AFRESH WHICH WAS 27.08.2008, TH ERE WAS NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES. A NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENTS WERE GRANTED, BUT STILL THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE DES PITE NOTICES BY M.P. NOS. 132 TO 134/MDS/11 3 REGISTERED POST. HENCE, THE APPEALS WERE ONCE AGAI N DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL. 3. NOW BEFORE US, ASSESSEES ARE SEEKING ONE MORE RE CALL AND CITE REASONS WHICH WERE BEYOND THEIR CONTROL FOR NOT ENT ERING APPEARANCE AS AFORESAID. IN OUR OPINION, WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUS TICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE C AUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED. THERE CANNOT BE ANY VESTED RIGHT FOR INJUSTICE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE ACTION. NEVERTHELESS, SINCE THE REVENUE AS WELL AS TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN PUT TO CON SIDERABLE DIFFICULTIES ON ACCOUNT OF REPEATED NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEES SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR A TOTAL COST OF ` 1000/-. THE ASSESSEES SHALL PAY ` 500/- EACH TO THE REVENUE AND SUCH MONEY SHALL BE PAID THROUGH CHALLA NS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNED, WITHIN ONE WEEK OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. SUBJECT TO THIS CONDITION, THE ORDERS ARE R ECALLED AND APPEALS INCLUDING THE CROSS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE FI XED UP FOR FRESH HEARING. THE HEARING WILL BE ON 24 TH OCTOBER, 2011 . THERE SHALL BE M.P. NOS. 132 TO 134/MDS/11 4 NO FURTHER NOTICE TO THE PARTIES SINCE THE DATE HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE A LLOWED SUBJECT TO COSTS AWARDED TO THE REVENUE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 5 TH AUGUST, 2011. KRI. COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE