V. Ramachandra Rao, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

MA 148/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9021 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K VISWANATHAM

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.146 TO 148/HYD/2012 (IN ITA NO.914 TO 916/HYD/2011) : AS ST. YEARS: 2002-03 2004-05 & 2005-06. SRI V. RAMACHANDRA RAO , HYDERABAD. (PAN ABKPV 9548 H) V/S- DCIT, CIR - 6 , HYDERABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI. GVN HARI RESPONDENT BY : SRI K. VISWANATHAM DATE OF HEARING: 03-08-2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03 -08-2012 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS SEE KING THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL ITS COMMON ORDER PASSED IN ITA NOS. 914 TO 916/HYD/2011 DATED 29 TH MAY, 2012 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-0 3, 2004-05 AND 2005-06. 2. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM ENSURING REPR ESENTATION OF THE APPEAL PETITION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ONLY DUE TO THE FACT O F NON-SERVING OF THE NOTICE FOR HEARING ON THE APPELLANT WHICH FACT WAS NOT BEING S UBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE VITAL FACT OF NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE PETITION NOT BEING COMMUNICATED ON THE ASSES SEE, THE APPEAL PETITION COULD NOT BE REPRESENTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS M.A.NOS. 146 TO 148 OF 2012 V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, HYD. ======================= 2 BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PETITIONER THAT THE PETIT IONER WAS NOT ABLE TO PURSUE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARI NG. HENCE, THERE WAS A LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTIN G THE APPEALS FILED BY HIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASS ESSEES REPRESENTATIVE WHEN THE APPEALS WERE CALLED ON FOR HEARING ON 29-5 -2012 WAS FOR THE REASONS OF INADVERTENT OMISSION AS STATED IN ITS PETITION A ND NOT DUE TO LACK OF INTEREST IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND NOT AGREED WITH THE RECALLING OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE INSTANT CASE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PR EVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF H EARING OF THESE APPEALS. THEREFORE, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, WE RECA LL OUR COMMON ORDER DATED 29 TH MAY, 2012 PASSED IN ITA NOS. 914 TO 916/HYD/2011 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THESE APPEALS FOR FRESH HEARING ON 12-11- 2012. THERE IS NO NECESSITY OF SERVING NOTICES TO THE PART IES IN THIS REGARD. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE TREATED AS NOTICE OF HEARING AND NO SEPARATE NOTICES MAY BE SERVED TO THE PARTIES CONCE RNED. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. M.A.NOS. 146 TO 148 OF 2012 V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, HYD. ======================= 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 03-08-2012. SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03-08-2012. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. MR. V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, 8 - 2 - 686/8/2, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2. 3. 4 5. JMR* THE D CIT, CIR - 6, HYDERABAD. CIT (A)-I HYDERABAD. CIT, AP, HYDERABAD. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. M.A.NOS. 146 TO 148 OF 2012 V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, HYD. ======================= 4