M/s. Sri Rajarajeswari Construction, Cuddalore V. ITO, Vellore

MA 154/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5206 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 154/MDS/2010 (IN ITA NO. 1309/MDS/2008) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. SRI RAJARAJESWARI CONSTRUCTION, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SRI K. RAJU, 6, NEHRUJI NAGAR, 5 TH STREET, STUARPET, ARAKKONAM, VELLORE DT. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(3), VELLORE. (PAN:AABFS1359P) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SRI S. SRIDHAR RESPONDENT BY : SRI P. B. SEKARAN O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1309/MDS/2008 DATED 13-0 8-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. SRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE AND SRI P.B. SEKARAN, LEARNED CIT-DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO REPRESENT ITSELF AT T HE TIME OF HEARING OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS PE R THE PROVISO TO RULE 25 OF M.A. NO. 154/MDS/2010 2 THE ITAT RULES, THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT WAS LIABLE TO BE HEARD AND THE EX PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS LIABLE TO BE RECALLED. I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT WAS UNABLE TO BE REPRESENTED AS THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WAS HELD UP IN TRAFFIC JAM ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE REVENUES APPEAL MAY B E RECALLED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ISSUES WERE ONLY RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- ADJUDICATION AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE ORD ER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT RECALL OF THE ORDER WAS NOT REQUIRED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THA T THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS HELD UP IN A TRAFFIC JAM AND HE WAS UNABLE TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING IN TIME. A PERUSAL OF THE P ROVISO TO RULE 25 OF THE ITAT RULES SHOWS THAT THE WORD USED IS SHALL SUBJECT T O THE CONDITION THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAU SE FOR NON-APPEARANCE. THE FACT THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE WAS HELD UP IN THE TRAFFIC JAM IS TO BE ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSEE BE GRANTED A N OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AS A RESPONDENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1309/MDS/2008 DATED 13-08-2010 STANDS RECALLED AND THE APPEAL IS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 10-11-2010. NO NOTICE NEED BE SENT TO THE PARTIES AS THE ORDER M.A. NO. 154/MDS/2010 3 HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. IN THE RESU LT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22-10-2 010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 22 ND OCTOBER, 2010. H. COPY TO: APPLICANT/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE