M/s. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jobat V. The ITO Ward-1, Ratlam

MA 17/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2994 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY MOONAT

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.G.GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A .M. M.A. NO.15/IND/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 109/IND/2013 A.Y. 2003- 04) KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, JHABUA PAN NO. AAALK0378H ..APPLICANT V/S. ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM ..RESPONDENT M.A.NO. 16/IND/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 26/IND/2013 A. Y. 2005- 06) KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, ALIRAJPUR, DISTRICT JHABUA PAN NO. AAALK0423H ..APPLICANT V/S. ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM ..RESPONDENT M.A.NO.17/IND/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 27/IND/2013 A.Y.2005-06 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, JOBAT, DISTRICT JHABUA PAN NO. AAALK0421F ..APPLICANT V/S. ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM ..RESPONDENT 2 A PPLICANTS BY SHRI SANJAY MOONAT, C.A. REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 8 . 5.201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8 .5.201 5 ORDER PER GARASIA, J.M. THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEES ON THE GROUND THAT THE T RIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 17.05.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE APPOINTED DATE DUE TO CERTAIN UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. 2. DURING HEARING, SHRI SANJAY MOONAT, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES CONTENDED THAT THE COUNSELS, APPOINTED BY THE ASSESSEES, WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE HEARING DUE TO PERSONAL R EASONS AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEES COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL ON THE APPOINTED DATE. IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM, THE ASSESS EES HAVE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE EX PARTE ORDER S OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 17.05.2013 MAY BE RECALLED. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES URGED THAT LENIENT VIEW MAY BE TAKEN AND THE ASSESS EES UNDERTAKE 3 TO BE VIGILANT IN FUTURE. HOWEVER, THE LD. SR. DR C ONTENDED THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEES TO REMAIN PRESENT ON THE APPOINTED DATE, THEREFORE, NO LENIENCY IS REQUIRED, MORE SPEC IFICALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEES WERE AWARE OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE AR GUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL. UNDER THE FACTS NA RRATED HEREINABOVE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NA TURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SUBSTANTIAL CAUS E OF JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL ON TECHNICALITIES ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSES SEES HAVE STATED THE REASONS OF NON-APPEARANCE AS NARRATED ABOVE AND THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAI M, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHE ARD, CONSEQUENTLY, THE EX-PARTE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL D ATED 17.05.2013 ARE RECALLED WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IT WILL BE TRE ATED AS LAST OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES AS THESE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED ON SO MANY DATES AT THE REQUESTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REG ISTRY IS DIRECTED TO REFIX THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES FOR HEARING. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSE SSEES ARE ALLOWED. 4 ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 8.5.2015 . SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 8 TH MAY , 2015. CPU*