EVERGREEN SEWA SAMITI, BHILWARA V. ITO (EXEMPTION), Ajmer

MA 143/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5997 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM ROY
• Assessee Lawyers: AASHISH SHARMA

Judgement Text

VK VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 143 & 144JP/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 476/JP/2017 & 149/JODH/2017 ) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & 2012-13 M/S EVERGREEN SEWA SAMITI, 46, CHAND VILLA, RAJENDRA MARG, BHILWARA. CUKE VS. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAATE1928 M VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AASHISH SHARMA (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM ROY (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 01/12/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/12/2017 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THE SAME ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISC. APPLI CATIONS ON 16/10/2017 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, JAIPUR BEN CH, JAIPUR DATED 22/08/2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 476/JP/2017 & 149/JODH /2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2012-13. 2. IN THESE CASES, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS VIDE ITA NO. 476/JP/2017 & 149/JODH/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008-09 & 2012-13 AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), AJMER DATED 15/03/2017 M.A. NO. 143 & 144/JP/2017 M/S EVERGREEN SEWA SAMITI VS ITO 2 AND 25/01/2017. THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT, JAIPUR HAS DECIDED THE APPEALS IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING DECI SION OF DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD . (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEALS. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS AND E XPLAINED THE REASONS AS TO WHY THE HEARING OF APPEAL ON 22/08/201 7 COULD NOT BE ATTENDED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED IN M.A. NO. 143 /JP/2017 AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 22/8/2017 WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 'DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA NOL49/JODH /2017 HAS DEFICIENCY OF DEPOSITING SHORT FEE OF RS. 979/- BES IDES LETTER OF AUTHORITY NOT FILED IN RS 100/- OF NON-JUDICIAL STA MP PAPER FOR WHICH THE REGISTRY HAS SENT THE DEFECT MEMO TO THE ASSESSEE TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN COMPLI ED WITH THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 22-8-2017. M/S. EVERGREEN SEWA SAMITI VS. ITO(EXEMPTION), AJM ER IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS(SUPRA) ON THE DATE OF HEARING IN SPITE OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSES SEE. FROM THIS, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURS UE ITS CASES, SO IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELHI BENC H OF ITAT IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. [1991] 38 ITD 320 AND ALSO ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKHOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480. THE APPEALS OF THE M.A. NO. 143 & 144/JP/2017 M/S EVERGREEN SEWA SAMITI VS ITO 3 ASSESSEE ARE NOT ADMITTED AND ARE DISMISSED IN LIMI NE AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-8-2017. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIS MISSED.' 2. THAT THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON APPEARANCE OF THE COUNSEL. THE APPELLANT HAD FI LED PAPERBOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 55 WHICH ARE ON RECORD. 3. THAT ANOTHER REASON FOR REJECTION OF APPEAL WAS NON FILING OF POWER OF ATTORNEY ON STAMP PAPER OF RS. 100/- WHICH WAS NEIT HER INTENTIONAL NOR WILLFUL BUT ONLY DUE TO THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF CO UNSEL WHO HAD MADE HIS DEBUT APPEARANCE BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL A ND THEREFORE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCEDURES OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL . THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS THEREFORE FILED ON SIMPLE PAPER WITH N ON JUDICIAL STAMP OF RS. 100/- INSTEAD OF BEING FILED ON STAMP PAPER OF RS. 100/-. THIS MISTAKE HAS BEEN RECTIFIED BY FILING A FRESH POWER OF ATTORNEY ON STAMP PAPER OF RS. 100/- WITH THE APPLICATION FOR RESTORA TION OF APPEAL. IN ANY CASE THIS WAS NONE OF THE FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH HE SHOULD BE PENALIZED. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO FILE AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH DIRECTIONS WERE ALSO COMPLIED WITH AND AMENDE D GROUNDS OF APPEAL/ AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL (FORM NO. 36) WAS ALSO FILED ON 03/06/2017. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF APPEAL FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22-8-2017 WHICH WAS REC EIVED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 22/08/2017. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT TH E APPLICATION COULD NOT REACH OFFICE / BOARD BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING ON 22-8-2017 FOR THE REASONS NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. (COPY OF APP LICATION AND ENVELOPE WITH TRACK REPORT ARE ENCLOSED.) M.A. NO. 143 & 144/JP/2017 M/S EVERGREEN SEWA SAMITI VS ITO 4 6. THAT ASSESSEE WAS DILIGENTLY PURSUING THE APPEAL WHICH FACT STANDS PROVED FROM THE SUBMISSIONS AND PAPER BOOK BEING FI LED WELL IN ADVANCE. 7. THAT THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLE CTOR LAND ACQUISITION V. MST. KATIJI (167 ITR 471) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- '4. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDE RATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED, FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO H AVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A N ON-DELIBERATE DELAY. 8. THAT THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX*, LUDHIANA V. AVON CYCLE S LTD. 177 TAXMAN 33 (PUNJ. & HAR.) HAS HELD THAT TECHNICALITI ES SHOULD TAKE A BACK SEAT AS FAR AS DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IS CONCERNED. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD BE AFFORDE D OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS ARGUMENTS ON MERITS INSTEAD OF DISMISSING T HE CASE IN DEFAULT. SIMILAR IDENTICAL SUBMISSION HAS ALSO BEEN MADE BY THE LD AR IN M. A. NO. 144/JP/2017. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO RECALL THE HONBLE ITAT ORDER DATED 22/08/2017. THE D.R. HAS OPPOSED THE PRAYER O F THE ASSESSEE REGARDING RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITA T. 4. FROM PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLAUSIBLE REASON TO NOT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BENCH. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I RECALL ORDER DATED 22/08/201 7 PASSED BY THIS BENCH M.A. NO. 143 & 144/JP/2017 M/S EVERGREEN SEWA SAMITI VS ITO 5 IN ITA NO. 476/JP/2017 & 149/JODH/2017 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2012-13. ACCORDINGLY THE PRESENT M.AS. F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASE AS PER REGULAR HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIONS AR E ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/12/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ TK;IQJ TK;IQJ TK;IQJ @ @@ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 01 ST DECEMBER, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- M/S EVERGREEN SEWA SAMITI, BHILWARA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO (EXEMPTIONS), AJMER. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (M.A. 143 & 144/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR