Auchlite Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS, Kanpur

MA 145/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4063 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS. 145 & 146/LKW/2015 ITA NO.385 & 386/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 TH E ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, KANPUR VS AUCHILITE CHEMICAL PVT. LTD., 3/64 VISHNU PURI, KANPUR 208 002 PAN AABCA 6854 G (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM , DR RESPONDENT BY 15 /0 1 /201 6 DATE OF HEARING 03 / 0 2 /201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA: THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALL OF COMBINED EX-PARTE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 09.10.2015. IN THESE MAS, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT EARLIER HEARING WAS FIXED ON 30.07.2015, WHICH WAS ADJOURNED TO 17.09.2 015 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SUCH REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED THROUGH POST AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURT ON THAT DATE. IT IS ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE IS BASED :-2- : AT KANPUR I.E. OUTSIDE THE CITY WHERE THE TRIBUNAL IS SITUATED AT LUCKNOW, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE INFORMED OF THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING BUT NO FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED AND THERE FORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING AND FO R THIS REASON, NONE WAS PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 17.09.2015. WE ALSO SUBMITTED TAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D THE SAME CONTENTIONS WHICH ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SE MAS. 2. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APP OINTED DATE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THESE MAS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D BE DISMISSED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNALS ORDER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 17.09.2015 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSES SEE AND THIS DATE OF HEARING WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AND IN SPITE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS DATE I.E . 17.09.2015. HENCE, THIS FACT COMES OUT THAT NO FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE DATE OF HEAR ING FIXED ON 17.09.2015. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD MOVED AN APPLICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE EARLY DATE I.E. 30.07.2015, IT W AS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE PRESENT IN THE COURT TO TAKE NOTE OF NEXT DATE OF HEARING IF THE ADJOURNMENT IS GRANTED AND IF THE AD JOURNMENT IS NOT GRANTED TO ARGUE THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THERE WAS N O REQUIREMENT ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ISSUE FRESH NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED AFTER GRANTING ADJOURNMENT ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT STILL WE FEEL THAT BECAUSE OF THIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT :-3- : AWARE OF THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING THE DATE BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR N ON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING IN TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF RULE 24 OF T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, WE RECALL THE EXPAR TE TRIBUNALS ORDER AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THESE APPEALS FOR HE ARING IN DUE COURSE. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ALTHOUGH IN THE PRESE NT CASE, WE ARE RECALLING THE EX-PARTE TRIBUNALS ORDER UNDER THESE FACTS THAT NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER ADJOURNING THE HEA RING ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THIS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A S A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT REMAIN PRES ENT IN THE COURT ROOM FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT AFTER SENDING THE REQU EST FOR ADJOURNMENT BY POST OR BY ANY OTHER MODE AND THEN E XPECT THE TRIBUNAL TO SEND FRESH NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR N EXT DATE OF HEARING IF ADJOURNMENT IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE M.AS. OF THE ASSESSEE AR E ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/ - SD/ - [ S . K. YA DAV ] [ A. K. GARODIA ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 03/02/2016 AKS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR