Shreeji Developers, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-9, Ahmedabad

MA 162/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8481 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL KR
• Assessee Lawyers: DIPAK SONI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . .!'#$, % & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.162/AHD/2011 (IN I.T(SS).A. NO.26/AHD/2008) (BLOCK PERIOD : 01-04-1985 TO 31-03-1998 & 01-04-1 995 TO 21-09-1995 ) M/S.SHREEJI DEVELOPERS B-1, SHYAM GOKUL APARTMENTS SATELLITE, RING ROAD AHMEDABAD ' ' ' ' / VS. THE DCIT CIRCLE-9 AHMEDABAD ) % ./*+ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACWPB 0657 Q ( ), / // / APPLICANT ) .. ( -.), / RESPONDENT ) ), / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DIPAK SONI -.), 0 / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAHUL KR., SR.D.R. '1 0 2% / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 27/4/2012 3'4 0 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/6/12 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED ON 11. 10.2011, THE APPELLANT HAS SOUGHT RECALLING OF AN EX-PARTE ORDER AS MENTIONED IN THE NOMENCLATURE HEREINABOVE DATED 10.8.2010, NARRATING THE REASON OF NON- APPEARANCE IN THE PETITION, REPRODUCED BELOW FOR RE FERENCE. 1.0 THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY M/S.SHRE EJI DEVELOPERS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE APPELLANT) IN THE M ATTER OR ORDER DATED 10 TH AUG 2010 FRAMED BY THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL IN MA NO.162/AHD/2011 ( ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.26/AHD/2008) M/S.SHREEJI DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT BLOCK PERIOD 0.4.85 TO 31.3.98 & 01.4.95 TO 21.09.9 5 - 2 - IT(SS)NO.26/AHD/2008 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2010. 2.0 THE APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AND MAKES A PRAYER THAT THE ORDER FRAMED BY THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED FOR FRESH HEARI NG AND THEREAFTER THE APPEAL BE DISPOSED OFF ON THE MERITS. .. 2.3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY REITERATED E ACH AND EVERY ADDITION MADE BY HIM. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE HEA RING WAS FIXED ON 10 TH AUGUST, 2010. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT SHRI AJAY BHATT ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM WHO IS LOOKING AFTER ALL THE M ATTERS RELATING TO THE TAXATION WAS OUT OF INDIA WHEN NOTICE WAS SERVED UP ON THE APPELLANT AND FURTHER ON THE DATE OF EHARING. HE WAS OUT OF INDIA AND WAS RECEIVING MEDICAL TREATMENTS IN USA FOR SERIOUS SPI NAL PAIN. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES INAD VERTENTLY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT GET CONTACTED AND THEREFOR E THE HEARING COULD NOT BE ATTENDED ON 10 TH AUGUST, 2010. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT ON AN EARLIER OCCASION BEFORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL THE MATTER WAS SERIOUSLY PROSECUTED. THE APPELLANT SUB MITS THAT THE APPELLANT IS INTEREST IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. .. 3.0 IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THEREFOR E THE ORDER FRAMED ON 10 TH AUGUST, 2010 BE KINDLY RECALLED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO THE ATTENDANCE WERE MADE BEF ORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHICH SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS SERIOUS ABOUT THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY IT. 2. ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT MR.DIPAK SONI APP EARED AND MADE A STATEMENT AT BAR THAT IF AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BE GRANTED, THEN HE SHALL PERSONALLY GIVE AN UNDERTAKING TO REPRESENT THE APPEAL WITHOUT SEEKING ADJOURNMENT AND DO HIS BEST TO GET THIS APP EAL FINALIZED AT AN EARLY DATE. MA NO.162/AHD/2011 ( ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.26/AHD/2008) M/S.SHREEJI DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT BLOCK PERIOD 0.4.85 TO 31.3.98 & 01.4.95 TO 21.09.9 5 - 3 - 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVE NUE, LD.SR.DR MR. RAHUL KR. HAS OPPOSED THE PETITION PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDUCT OF THIS APPLICANT IN THE PAST WAS NON-COOPE RATIVE. 4. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SID ES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS PETITION HAS SUBSTANTIAL FORCE BECAUSE AS PER THE FACTS STATED THEREIN, ONE OF THE PERSON, NAMELY SHR I AJAY BHATT, WHO IS LOOKING AFTER THE TAX MATTER AS CLAIMED, WAS OUT OF INDIA AND HAD GONE TO USA FOR SOME MEDICAL TREATMENT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE AGREE WITH T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ASSE SSEES FAILURE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ITAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. ACCORDING LY, WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE ITAT BENCH AAHMEDABAD PASSED IN IT(SS)A NO .26/AHD/2008 DATED 10-08-2010. CONSIDERING THE UNDERTAKING GIVE N BY THE LD.AR MR.DIPAK SONI, WE NOW HEREBY FIX THE DATE OF HEARIN G ON 01/08/2012 AND THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO INFORM BOTH THE PARTIES THROUGH REQUISITE NOTICE OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( . .!'#$ ) ( ) % ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( M UKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15/ 6 /2012 62..', .'../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS MA NO.162/AHD/2011 ( ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.26/AHD/2008) M/S.SHREEJI DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT BLOCK PERIOD 0.4.85 TO 31.3.98 & 01.4.95 TO 21.09.9 5 - 4 - 5 0 -7 8 74 5 0 -7 8 74 5 0 -7 8 74 5 0 -7 8 74/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ), / THE APPLICANT 2. -.), / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9() / THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. 7 >> >/ // / * * * * ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION6.6.12 (DICTATION-PAD PAGES 4 ATTACHED) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 6.6.12 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S15.6.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 15.6.12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER