P.Palanivel, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 171/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2977 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NOS.170 & 171/MDS/2014 (IN ITA NO.660/MDS/2013 & C.O. NO.92/MDS/2013) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI P. PALANIVEL, NO.2, 3 RD CROSS STREET, 3 RD MAIN ROAD, JAGANATHAPURAM, VELACHERI, CHENNAI - 600 042. PAN : AAHPP 7907 L V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE IV, CHENNAI - 600 034. ( PETITIONER ) ( RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SH. N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT * + ,% / DATE OF HEARING : 15.05.2015 -'( + ,% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.05.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 25.09.20 14. 2. SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE PETIT IONER, SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THIS TRIBUNAL W AS RECEIVED BY SOMEBODY WHOSE IDENTITY IS NOT KNOWN. ACCORDING TO THE 2 M.P. NOS.170 & 171/MDS/14 LD.COUNSEL, THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE WAS NOT BROUG HT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT AP PEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 27.08.2014 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED F OR HEARING. THE NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL ON 27.08.2014 WAS NEITHER WILFUL NOR WANTON, BUT BEYON D THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNS EL, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY RECALLI NG THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 2. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. THEREFORE, THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE T RIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON MERIT. REFERRING TO RULE 24 OF THE IN COME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, THE LD. D.R. SUBM ITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON- APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. REFERRING TO TH E AFFIDAVIT FILED BY ONE R. RAMYA, THE AUDIT MANAGER OF CHARTERED ACCOUN TANTS OFFICE, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAKING INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT BEFORE THE ITAT, THE HIGHES T FACT FINDING AUTHORITY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT 3 M.P. NOS.170 & 171/MDS/14 FURNISHED REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ALSO. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT DESERVE D TO BE RECALLED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. IS THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE RECALLED UNDER SECTION 254( 2) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS ANY ERRO R IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE MIS CELLANEOUS PETITIONS UNDER PROVISO TO RULE 25 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 TO RECALL THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIB UNAL ON 25.09.2014. PROVISO TO RULE 25 OF THE INCOME TAX ( APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 PROVIDES FOR RECALL OF THE OR DER OF THIS TRIBUNAL PROVIDED THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE C LAIMS THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED BY HIM AND THE PERSON, WHO RECEIVED THE NOTICE, DID NOT BRING TO HIS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE HE ARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THIS PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL ON 27.08.2014. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE ON THE PART OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 27.08.2014 WHEN T HE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. THEREFORE, IN EXERCISE OF TH E JURISDICTION OF THIS 4 M.P. NOS.170 & 171/MDS/14 TRIBUNAL UNDER PROVISO TO RULE 25 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DA TED 25.09.2014 IS HEREBY RECALLED. 4. NOW THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO.660/M DS/2013 AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN C.O. NO. 92/MDS/2013 ARE RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE REGI STRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTION ON 29.07.2015. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE P RESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO ISSUE SEPAR ATE NOTICE OF HEARING. IN OTHER WORDS, COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE TREATED AS NOTICE OF HEARING ON 29.07.2015. 5. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, BOTH THE MISCELLANEO US PETITIONS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSI ON OF HEARING ON 15 TH MAY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED, THE 15 TH MAY, 2015. KRI. 5 M.P. NOS.170 & 171/MDS/14 + 1,23 43(, /COPY TO: 1. 56 /APPELLANT 2. 1756 /RESPONDENT 3. * 8, () /CIT(A) 4. * 8, /CIT 5. 39 1, /DR 6. ' : /GF.