Goutham Chand Jain (HUF), Hyderabad V. Addl.CIT, Range-10, Hyderabad

MA 157/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8982 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMISHA S GUPT
• Assessee Lawyers: G V S S MURTY

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. 157/HYD/2012 IN ITA NO. 60/HYD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 M/S. G AU THAM CHAND JAIN (HUF), SECUNDERABAD PAN: AABHG7699J VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-10, HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI G.V.S.S. MURTY RESPONDENT BY: SMT. AMISHA S. GUPT DATE OF HEARING: 07 . 09 .201 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.09.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECALL OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 60/HYD/2 012 DATED 1.5.2012 FOR A.Y. 008-09. IN THIS CASE THE TRIBUNA L DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE RATIO LAID D OWN BY THE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH IN CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. , REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320. 2. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 1.5.2012 THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE NOTICE OF HEARING TO ITS AUDIT ORS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH RESULTED IN NON-APPEARANC E BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SCHEDULED DATE OF HEARING. TO THIS EFFECT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. T HE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH INTEREST IN PROSECUT ING ITS APPEAL AND ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSE SSEE FOR CONTESTING ITS CASE ON MERIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE AND FAIR PLAY. MA NO. 157/HYD/2012 M/S. GOWTHAM CHAND JAIN (HUF) ======================= 2 3. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSITION OF THE AR. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO. 60/HYD/2012 DATED 1.5.2012 IS HEREBY RECALLED AND T HE APPEAL IS RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DIRECTED TO POST THIS CASE FOR HEARING ON 6.12.2012 . NO NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE SENT AND THIS ORDER ITSELF WILL SE RVE AS NOTICE. 5. IN THE RESULT, MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. G AU THAM CHAND JAIN (HUF), 10 - 3 - 56, EAST MARREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, RANGE - 10, HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A) - VI, HYDERABAD 4 . THE CIT - V, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD. TPRAO