Shri Maheshbhai M.Pandya, Vapi V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

MA 17/SRT/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed by the assessee, Shri Mahesh M. Pandya, seeking to recall an ex parte order of dismissal due to non-prosecution. The assessee contended that he was unaware of the hearing date and had not received proper notice, leading to the appointment of a new advocate only after the initial communication failed. The Departmental Representative opposed the plea, but the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the earlier order and scheduled a new hearing date.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 301706 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM Miscellaneous Application No.17/SRT/2023 [Arising out of ITA No.388/SRT/2018] Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Hearing) Shri Mahesh M. Pandya, 9, Dipkiran Co-op Housing Society, Nr. N. H. – 8, GIDC, Vapi Vs. The ITO, Ward-6, Vapi. (Appellant) (Respondent) èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFUPP6452J Appellant by Shri Krutarth Desai, AR Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/06/2023 Date of Pronouncement 26/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: By way of this Miscellaneous Application (MA), the assessee is seeking to recall the order of this Tribunal whereby the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal in limine for want of non- prosecution vide its order dated 20.09.2022. 2. The Learned Counsel for the assessee contended that Tribunal has passed the ex parte order without hearing the assessee. The Ld. Counsel pointed out that assessee has communicated to the particular advocate which was not finally appointed by him and then after he approached another advocate to plead his case before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel also stated that assessee did not receive the notice of hearing from the Tribunal and therefore the assessee was not aware that appeal was fixed for hearing on a particular day before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel also pointed out that assessee is an agriculturist and does not know about the Page | 2 MA.17/SRT/2023 Mahesh M. Pandya Income Tax Act and does not know the importance of proceeding before the Tribunal and therefore he could not appoint the advocate to plead his case on time, and as a result the Tribunal has passed ex parte order. Therefore Ld. Counsel contended that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Tribunal. 3. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue opposed the plea taken by Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that because of communication gap between assessee and his advocate, as the assessee was in the process to appoint new advocate to plead his case, so the assessee’s matter was not argued. We also note that a few occasions, the assessee took adjournment, hence it is not a case that assessee is gross negligent on his part. We agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel that there was a reasonable cause for assessee’s failure to appear before the ITAT. We note that substantial justice should not be denied on account of technicality, therefore considering the facts of the assessee’s case, we recall the order of the Tribunal dated 20.09.2022 for fresh hearing. 5. The date of hearing in this case is fixed on “28.07.2023” in the presence of Ld. Counsel and Ld. DR, which is announced in the open court, therefore separate notice of hearing would not be sent to the assessee. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing on 28.07.2023. 6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, is allowed. Page | 3 MA.17/SRT/2023 Mahesh M. Pandya Order is pronounced on 26/06/2023 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 26/06/2023 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat