M/s Ashwin Associates, RAIPUR (CG) V. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

MA 15/BIL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2643 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEETAL VERMASR
• Assessee Lawyers: S R RAO
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BENCH -RAIPUR . .. . . .. . , ,, , ! ! ! !, ,, , . .. . . .. . BEFORE S/SH.H.L.KARWA,PRESIDENT AN D RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 15/BLPR/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.178/BL PR/2010 ' ' ' ' / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR -2007-08 ASHWIN ASSOCIATES, VINAY COMPLEX, NAYAPARA, RAIPUR. PAN:AAOFA0934R V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2(1), RAIPUR ( ) / // / APPELLANT ) ( *+) / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. S.R. RAO, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. SHEETAL VERMA,SR. DR - /DATE OF HEARING : 19-12-2014 - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 -12-2014 / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA,AM 3 33 3 4 4 4 4, ,, , ! ! ! ! : VIDE ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION,DATED 13.06.2012 , THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE APPEAL FILED BY IT ON 10.02.2012,THAT I T WAS NOT PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING,THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD TO BE RECALLED AS PER PRO VISIONS OF RULE 25 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE RULES,1963(RULES). BRIEF FACTS: 2. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK.IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2008.THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)HAD COMPLETED T HE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2009.THE AO MADE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF TH E =.BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE AO,IT CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA),WHO GAVE IT PART RELIEF.IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NONE APP EARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE.AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL ON RECORD,THE TR IBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE AND PARTLY REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE T HE AO, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE,THAT ORDER PASSE D BY THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE RECALLED.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT ISSUE OF RE CALLING THE ORDER COULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER,SO,I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 25 OF TH E RULES. AS A RESULT, THE M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. '7 8 9 : << = 4 : . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 19 TH DECEMBER,2014. - A 19 B , 2014 - . SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA/ . .. . . .. . ) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA) PRESIDENT/ 4 4 4 4 /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /RAIPUR. B DATE: 19.12.2014 2 MA NO. 15/BLPR/12( IN ITA NO. 178/BLPR/10) - -- - *'C< *'C< *'C< *'C< D< D< D< D< / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / ) 2. RESPONDENT / *+) 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ E F , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / E F 5. DR ITAT,RAIPUR BENCH/ < *'' , . . . , 6. GUARD FILE/ . +< *' //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, RAIPUR