Sh. Bhagwan Dass Garg, Ludhiana V. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

MA 136/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4109 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGHSR
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ BHALLA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , ! , ' # $ % & , ' (! BEFORE: SMT.DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A M )* $ +, /MA NOS.136 & 137/CHD/2018 IN . / ITA NOS.1254 & 1255/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2004-05 & 2006-07) SH.BHAGWANDASSGARG, 2543, URBAN ESTATE, PHASE- I, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUDHIANA. ./ PAN: AECPG8745E /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PANKAJBHALLA, CA / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJITSINGH,SR.DR ! ' /DATE OF HEARING : 28.02.2019 #$%& /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.03.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : BOTH THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE APPLICANT FOR RECALLING OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL DATED 6.4.2018 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2006-07, WHICH WERE DISMISSED EX-PARTE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THE REASON FOR NOT ATT ENDING THE HEARING ON 06-04-18, WAS THAT THE COUNSEL OF THE AP PLICANT, SHRI PANKAJBHALLA, WAS UNWELL FROM FEW DAYS PRIOR T O DATE OF HEARING SUFFERING FROM ACUTE LIVER DISORDER. THAT H OWEVER, HE CONSIDERED IT AS NORMAL FEVER AND DID NOT FILE ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT COMPREHENDING THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE SCHEDULED DATE. 3. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING HE WAS AGAIN CAU GHT UP WITH FEVER. IT WAS ONLY ON THE DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T OF ORDER THAT HE GOT ALL TESTS DONE AND DISCOVERED THAT HE W AS HAVING ACUTE DISORDER IN LIVER WHICH WAS THE CAUSE OF HIS SICKNESS ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT FURTHER STATED THAT SINCE HE DID NOT COMPREHEND IT IN ADVAN CE, NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS MOVED AND IT COULD NOT BE MOVED AT THE LAST MOMENT AS HE BELONGED TO LUDHIANA. THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT PLEADED THAT HE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL TO HAVE A FAIR REPRESENTATION BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR HEARING. 4. IN THIS REGARD, AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT SHRI PANKAJBHALLAALONGWITH DOCTORS PRESCRIPTION AN D BLOOD REPORTS WERE FILED. 5. THE LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CAS E. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFIC IENT REASON FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE APPOI NTED DATE OF HEARING TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. WE ARE THEREFORE O F THE OPINION THAT TO MEET THE ENDS OF NATURAL JUSTICE, T HE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD. EXERCISING THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL PROVIDED IN TH E PROVISO TO RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963, TO SET ASID E AN EX- PARTE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL IN CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE 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 RECALLING THE ORDER FOR FRESH HEARING, WHICH WE HEREBY DO. THE REGISTRY IS DIRE CTED TO FIX THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 1.5.2019, WHICH WAS PR ONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. NO SEPARATE NOTICE BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS FILED BY THE APPLICANT ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ' # $ % & (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER (! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' /DATED: 12 TH MARCH, 2019 * * $ ' ( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / THE APPELLANT / THE RESPONDENT ! ) / CIT ! ) ( )/ THE CIT(A) *+ , , ,-.+/ / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH +. 0' / GUARD FILE $ ' ! / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR