M/s Verma Roadways, Kanpur V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

MA 144/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4088 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.144/LKW/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.726/LKW/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 05 A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KANPUR VS. M/S VERMA ROADWAYS, 133/225, TRANSPORT NAGAR KANPUR PAN:AABFV6386P (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 18/03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18/03/2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RE QUESTING FOR RECALL OF EX PARTE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 28.07.2015. IT IS SUBMITT ED IN THE M. A. THAT ON 25.06.2015, REQUEST WAS MADE FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR TH E REASON THAT THE MATTER COULD NOT BE PREPARED ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN COURSE OF HEARING, SAME CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANC E AND THEREFORE, RULE 24 OF TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 IS NOT APPLICABLE. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES SUCH AS 15.09.2014, 19.11.2014, 08.02.2015 AND 04.03.2015. ON THESE DATES, NONE APP EARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, HEARING WA S ADJOURNED TO FACILITATE THE ASSESSEE TO ENGAGE COUNSEL AND GET THE CASE PREPARE D. THEREAFTER, ON 30.03.2015, MR. RAHUL AGARWAL, ADVOCATE AND AR OF T HE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.04. 2015. AGAIN ON 23.04.2015, MR. RAHUL AGARWAL REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND HE REQUESTED FOR A DATE AFTER [2] 15.05.2015. ACCORDINGLY, ON HIS REQUEST, THE HEARIN G WAS ADJOURNED TO 21.05.2015. ON 21.05.2015, ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS MOVED BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE AND AR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS P LEA THAT HE WAS RECENTLY AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THIS CASE. FROM THESE FACTS , IT COMES OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFY THAT THERE WAS REASONABL E CAUSE FOR NOT ARGUING THE MATTER ON 21.05.2015 RESULTING INTO PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE FOR SUCH AN OLD A PPEAL, GRANTING FURTHER ADJOURNMENT ON CHANGE OF COUNSEL WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE, THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST WAS REJECTED AND THE AR OF THE ASSESSES WAS ASKED TO ARGUE THE CASE BUT SINCE, HE DID NOT ARGUE BY PLEADING THAT HE HAS NOT PREPARED THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD NO OPTION BUT T O PASS EX PARTE ORDER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS M.A. O F THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE RULE 24 OF TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 IS NOT APPLICABLE UNDER THE SE FACTS. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:18 TH MARCH, 2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR