IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 161/H/2013 (IN ITA NO. 1510/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) N. SREENATH REDDY (HUF), APPLICANT KEELAVATHI (V&P) CHITTOOR DT. (PAN AADHN 1321 A) VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RESPOND ENT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPATHI. APPLICANT BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI Y.V.S.T. SAI DATE OF HEARING : 30/08/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 /09/2013 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT 'B' BENCH, HYDERABA D BENCHES, HYDERABAD, IN APPEAL ITA NO. 1510/HYD/2012 DATED 05/03/2013, WHICH WAS PASSED EX-PARTE BY THE ITAT. THE ASSESSEE IN THE MA, BESIDES MENTIONING THE REAS ONS FOR NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING OF HIS CASE, REQUESTED TH AT NON ATTENDANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING WAS OUT OF INADVE RTENCE AND NOT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS DISINTERESTED IN PROSEC UTION OF APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE CITED, INTER-ALIA, THE FOLLOWI NG REASONS FOR NON ATTENDANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING: THE PETITIONER HEREIN HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE NOTI CE WAS SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: MA NO. 161/HYD/13 N. SREENATH REDDY(HUF) 2 N. SREENATH REDDY (HUF) KEELAVATHI (V&P) PUNGANUR TALUK CHITTOOR DIST. THE PETITIONER BEING A CONTRACTOR WAS AWAY FROM THE SAID ADDRESS AND WAS STAYING AT MADANAPALLE. THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON HIM. PERHAPS THE NOTICE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SERVED ON SOME ONE AT THE PLACE AS THE PETITIONER WAS NOT IN THE VILLAGE. IT IS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT AS HE WAS AWAY FROM THE VILLAGE THE INFORMATION WAS NOT BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE AND, THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT BE PRESENT BEFORE THE HONB LE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THE PETITIONER HUM BLY SUBMITS THAT HE IS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASON I N NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL ON THE DA TE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER REQUESTS THE HONBLE ITAT TO KINDLY CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION MADE ABOVE AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS U/S 254(2) READ WITH RULE 25 OF THE IT RULES, 1963. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMING THE A FORESAID REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING O F THE APPEAL. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED IN TERMS WITH RULE 25 OF THE ITAT RULES AN D AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO MAKE HIS SUBMISSIONS IN THE APPEAL. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT OBJEC TED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RECALLING TH E ORDER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE AND THE LEARNED DR IN THE MATTER. AFTER PERUSING TH E ASSESSMENTS MADE IN THE MA AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN NOT ATTEND ING ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. WE ARE, THEREFORE, I NCLINED TO RECALL THE ORDER DATED 05/03/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO. MA NO. 161/HYD/13 N. SREENATH REDDY(HUF) 3 1510/HYD/12 IN TERMS WITH RULE 25 OF ITAT RULES. TH E REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL ON 23/12/201 3 FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL ON MERITS, WHIC H IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/09/2013. (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SATIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: /09/2013 KV COPY TO:- 1) N. SREENATH REDDY (HUF), KEELAVATHI (V&P), P UNGANUR TALUK, CHITTOOR DIST. 2) ACIT, CIRCLE 1, TIRUPATHI 3) THE CIT (A)-V, GUNTUR 4) THE CIT, TIRUPATHI 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.