Sri. M. Rama Murthy, Kadapa V. ITO, Ward-1, Kadapa

MA 153/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0565 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM; P VINOD
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA `VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 153/HYD/2013 IN ITA NO. 1396/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SRI M. RAMA MURTHY KADAPA; PAN: AHOPM6203E VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I, KADAPA APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: S/ S RI P. VINOD & AV RAGHURAM RESPONDENT BY: SRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING: 26. 0 7 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.07.2013 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) BY THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECALL OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 20.3.201 3. 2. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE OF HEARING ON 20.3.2013. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED HIS RESIDENCE AND THE SAME WAS DULY INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COPY OF THIS LETTER IS SUBMITTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FILING THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, MENTIONED THE OLD ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND HENCE THE NOTICE OF HEARING FROM THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE NOT TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL BUT NON- REPRESENTATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DUE TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED REASON. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED AR PRAYED THAT TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.3.2013 BE RECALLED AND THE APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON MERIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FA IR PLAY. MA NO. 153/ HYD/2013 SRI M. RAMA MURTHY ================= 2 3. THE LEARNED DR NOT STRONGLY OPPOSED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPE AL WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE ON MERIT DUE TO NON-REPRESENTATION OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL DID NOT REACH THE ASSESSEE DUE TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS WHICH WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THE OLD ADDRESS IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEA L FILED BY HIM. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PR EVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE IN REPRESENTING BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. BEING SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO RECALL THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL DATED 20.3.2013 AND THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO. 13 96/HYD/12 IS HEREBY RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL. T HE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 19.11.2013. NO NOTICE OF HEARING WILL BE SENT TO THE PARTIES AN D THIS ORDER ITSELF WOULD SERVE AS A NOTICE OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, MA BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH JULY, 2013 SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 26 TH JULY, 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI M. RAMA MURTHY, 7/501-1-6, VIDYAMANDIR SCHOOL L ANE, NGO COLONY, KADAPA. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, KADAPA. 3. THE CIT(A), GUNTUR. 4. THE CIT, TIRUPATI 5. THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD. TPRAO