M/s. Super Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Addl. CIT, Kanpur

MA 14/LKW/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5292 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANADI VERMASR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NOS.14 & 15(L.)/2010 (IN I.T.A.NOS.24(L/2009 & 407(L.)/2009) A.Y. : 2001-02 M/S. SUPER PIPES PVT. LTD., VS. THE ADDL.CIT-V, D-5,JAINPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANPUR. KANPUR. PAN AACCS0100J (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANADI VERMA,SR.D.R. O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS BY THE ASSESS EE ARISE OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.2.2010 PASSED IN I.T.A.NOS.24 AND 407(L.)/2009 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS; SIMILARLY WORDED APPLICATIONS, DATED 5.4.2010, HAS STATED AS UNDER : M.A.NO.14(L.)/2010 HON'BLE SIRS, MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS:- WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED MATTER, THE PETITIONER BEGS TO SUBMIT AS UNDER FOR YOUR HONOURS KIND CONSIDERATION AND NECESSARY ORDERS. 2 THAT THE PETITIONER COMPANY FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)II, KANPUR DATED JULY 7 TH 2006, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE SAID APPEAL WAS MARKED AS ITA NO. 24/L UC/09. THAT THE SAID APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22. 2.2010. THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN PLEASED ENOUGH T O DISMISS THE APPEAL IN DEFAULT FOR THE REASONS OF NON-APPEARANCE . THAT EARLIER THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 10.02.2010, ON WHICH DATE THE BENCH WAS OFF AND THE HEARING COULD NOT TAKE PLACE. THEREAFTER, THE HEARING WAS SUO-MOTU FIXED FOR 22.02.2010. EARLIER ALSO, WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 25.01.2010, THE BENCH DID NOT F UNCTION ON THAT DATE. THE PETITI0NER WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT T HE NEXT DATE OF HEARING WOULD BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER, HO WEVER, NO NOTICE OR INTIMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. THE P ETITIONER WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF, THAT AS AND WHEN THE DATE WOUL D BE FIXED, THE SAME WOULD BE COMMUNICATED AND THE PETITIONER WOULD PUT AN APPEARANCE. P R A Y E R IN THE PREMISES SET-FORTH ABOVE, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED, THAT THE ABOVE APPEAL DECIDED EXPARTE BY APPLYING THE DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 32 (DEL), MAY K INDLY BE RECALLED, FOR THE REASONS OF BONAFIDE BELIEF ON THE PART OF T HE PETITIONER IN PUTTING AN APPEARANCE BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT A NO TICE OF HEARING WOULD BE COMMUNICATED AS IS THE USUAL PRACTICE IN T HE TRIBUNAL. A SUM OF RS.50/- BEING COST OF MISCELLANEOUS FEE HA S BEEN DEPOSITED. CHALLAN IS ENCLOSED. SUBMITTED. FOR SUPER PIPES PT. LTD. SD. PETITIONER ENCL.: AS ABOVE. DATED 13.3.2010 3 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE A PPLICATIONS. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ABOVE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22 .10.2010. HOWEVER, ON THE SAID DATE NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF THE ASSESS EE AND THE APPEALS WERE TREATED UNADMITTED AS PER PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ABOVE SAID APPEA LS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22.2.2010. EARLIER, THE APPEALS WERE FIXED ON 10 .2.2010 ON WHICH DATE, THE BENCH WAS OFF AND THE HEARING COULD NOT TAKE P LACE. THEREAFTER, THE HEARING WAS SUO MOTU FIXED FOR 22.2.2010. EARLIER ALSO WHEN THE APPEALS WERE FIXED ON 25.1.2010, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTIO N ON THAT DATE. SHRI RAKEHS GARG, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSED WAS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE NEXT DATE OF H EARING WOULD BE COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO NOTICE O R INTIMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT AS AND WHEN THE DATE WOULD B E FIXED, THE SAME WOULD BE COMMUNICATED AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD PUT AN APPE ARANCE. SHRI RAKESH GARG, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE AND BONA FIDE REASO N FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE F IND THAT EARLIER THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 8.12.2009 WHEN SHRI RAK ESH GARG, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE HE ARING OF THE APPEALS WAS ADJOURNED TO 15.1.2010 WHEN THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCT ION AND THE HEARING OF THESE CASES WAS ADJOURNED TO 10.2.2010. ON 10.2.201 0, THE BENCH WAS OFF. HOWEVER, THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS WAS ADJOURNED T O 22.2.2010. ON THE SAID DATE, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL TREATED THESE APPEALS AD UNADMITTED. HOWEV ER, THERE IS NO MATERIAL 4 ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY D ID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 22.2.2010. THUS, CONSIDERING THE ENTI RE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.2.2010 AND RESTORE BOTH THE APPEALS FOR HEARING SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.500. THE ASSESSEE WILL SHOW THE CHALLAN OF PAYMENT OF RS.500 TO THE R EGISTRY OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THEREAFTER, THE REGISTRY WILL FIX THE APPEALS I.E. I.T.A.NOS.24 AND 407(L.)/2009 FOR HEARING. 3. IN THE ABOVE TERMS, BOTH THE APPLICATIONS ARE AL LOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.11.2 010. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT NOVEMBER 25TH ,2010. COPY TO THE : 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.