M/s. Gajanan Developers, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,(OSD)Circle-9, Ahmedabad

MA 178/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7449 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

-1- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' BEFORE SHRI D K TYAGI - JM AND SHRI A MOHAN ALANKAMONY - AM M A NO.178/AHD/2011 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2863/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2006-07) M/S GAJANAN DEVELOPERS, 3, UPPER FLOOR,RATNASAGAR COMPLEX, OPP. GULAB PARK, SOLA ROAD, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD-380 059 V/S THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-9, INCOME-TAX OFFICE, BEHIND KAMDHENU COMPLEX, 1 ST FLOOR, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD PAN: AAGFG 2725 G [APPLICANT] [ORIGINAL APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] [ORIGINAL RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI J P SHAH, AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI C K MISHRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING:- 06-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 06-01-2012 O R D E R PER D K TYAGI (JM) :- BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER D ATED 14-07- 2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT IN ITA.NO.2863/AHD/2009 FOR THE AY 2006-07. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 2 1. THE APPLICANT HEREIN RECEIVED THE ORDER IN I.T. A. NO.2863/AHD/2009 FOR ASST. YEAR 2006-07 DATED 14.07 .2011. THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT APPLICANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PRO SECUTING THE APPEAL. IT IS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THAT 'THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK 'LEFT'. THE NOTI CE WAS SENT BY REGISTRY ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN AP PEAL MEMO AND IN CASE HE HAS CHANGED HIS ADDRESS, HE SHOULD HAVE INF ORMED THE REGISTRY ABOUT HIS NEW ADDRESS. SINCE THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE NO PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED IF THE CASE IS A DJOURNED TO SOME OTHER DATE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARED TO INFORM THE REGISTRY ABOUT HIS NEW ADDRESS, IT APPEARS THAT HE IS NOT INTEREST ED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILED BY HIM BEFORE US AND ACCORDINGLY, FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF THE MULTIPLAN (INDIA) (P) LTD., (38 ITD 320), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.' 2. NOW, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IT IS SURPRISED THAT THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAD RETURNED THE NOTICE WITH THE REMARK 'LEFT' BECAUSE IT IS STILL TILL TODAY FUNCTIONING A T THE VERY SAME ADDRESS AND HE IS RECEIVING ALL OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE AND NOTICES FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AT THE VERY SAME ADDRESS. 3. THE APPLICANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT IT HAD NO INTE NTION OF NOT APPEARING AND CONDUCTING THE MATTER INSTEAD IT IS V ERY SERIOUS IN ITS ENDEAVOUR AND BELIEVES THAT IT HAS A GOOD CASE ON M ERITS AS WELL AS IN LAW. IT IS THE HUMBLE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT THAT THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED BACK AND MAY KINDLY BE FIXED FOR HEARING AS THE APPLICANT HAD NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICE THOUGH THE AD DRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36 IS THE CORRECT ADDRESS AND IS A FUNCTIONAL AD DRESS EVEN TODAY. 4. THE COPY OF THE ORDER WAS DOWNLOADED FROM THE SI TE OF THE IT AT WHEN IT WAS INQUIRED FROM THE REGISTRY ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE APPEAL AND WHEN THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN HEARD EX-PARTE. COPY OF THE ITAT ORDER DOWNLOADED F ROM THE SITE IS ANNEXED HEREWITH MARKED EXHIBIT-A. AFFIDAVIT ENUMER ATING THE ABOVE-MENTIONED FACTS IS ANNEXED HEREWITH MARKED EX HIBIT-B. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE 3 ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THE BONA FIDE OF THE ASSESS EE-APPLICANT NOT BEING IN DOUBT, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORDS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION TH AT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ASSESSEE'S FAILURE TO APPEAR B EFORE THE ITAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 14-07-2011 AND DIRECT THAT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL BE FIXED ON 04-04-2012. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 06-01-2012 SD/- SD/- (A MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (D K TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 06-01-2012 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S GAJANAN DEVELOPERS, 3, UPPER FLOOR,RATNASAGA R COMPLEX, OPP. GULAB PARK, SOLA ROAD, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD-380 059 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), CIR CLE- 9, INCOME-TAX OFFICE, BEHIND KAMDHENU COMPLEX, 1 ST FLOOR, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-C, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE 4 BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD