SHRI SUNDER LAL ADVANI, KOTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

MA 18/JPR/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3904 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUNI PALADDL CIT DHK

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES B, JAIPUR JH LANHI XLKA] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM M.A. NO. 18/JP/2021 (ARISING OUT OF VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 356/JP/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SUNDER LAL ADVANI, PROP. OF M/S MAHALAXMI ENTERPRISES, 9/1, SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL AREA, KOTA. VS. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), KOTA. PAN NO. AEZPA 8220 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAURAV HARSH (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL(ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/10/2021 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/10/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. BY WAY OF THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 17/05/2018 PASSED IN ITA NO. 356/JP/2018 OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREBY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. THE HEARING OF THIS M.A. WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. 3. IN THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: MA 18/JP/2021_ SUNDER LAL ADVANI VS ITO 2 1. THAT I HAD FILED AN INCOME-TAX APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20122013 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL), KOTA. 2. THAT THE AFORESAID APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 17.05.201.8 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN DEFAULT VIDE ORDER DATED 17.05.2018 ON THE GROUND OF NONE PRESENT ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING. 3. THAT SUBSEQUENT TO FILLING THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTED FROM THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL MEMO AND INADVERTENTLY NEW ADDRESS WAS NOT UPDATED IN THE RECORD OF THE HON'BLE ITAT. THE NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS SENT BY THE REGISTRY AT HIS OLD ADDRESS AND DUE TO CHANGE IN ADDRESS THE NOTICE WASN'T BROUGHT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE AND THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT COULD NOT CONTACT HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS UNATTENDED ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING. 4. THAT THE NON APPEARANCE WAS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR INTENTIONAL AND THE BONAFIDE OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ARE APPARENT ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE APPLICATION AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LOOKING TO MERITS OF THE CASE THE APPEAL BE ENTERTAINED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT AND THEIR COUNSEL SHALL REMAIN VIGILANT IN FUTURE WITH REFERENCE TO PROCEEDING OF THIS APPEAL. IT IS THEREFORE, HUMBLY PRAYED THAT BY SUITABLE ORDER OR DIRECTION TO KINDLY RESTORE BACK THE APPEAL TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER AND OBLIGE. MA 18/JP/2021_ SUNDER LAL ADVANI VS ITO 3 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RAISED OBJECTION OF RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 17/05/2018. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. FROM PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE AFORESAID APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 17/05/2018 AND ON THE VERY SAME DAY, THE COORDINATE BENCH HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT SU BSEQUENT TO FILLING OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTED FROM THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL MEMO AND INADVERTENTLY NEW ADDRESS WAS NOT UPDATED IN THE RECORD OF THE ITAT. THE NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS SENT BY THE REGISTRY AT HIS OLD ADDRESS AND DUE TO CHANGE IN ADDRESS THE NOTICE WASN'T BROUGHT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTACT HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS UNATTENDED ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING. THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT UPDATING THE NEW ADDRESS TO THE RECORD OF THE ITAT WAS SOUGHT TO BE CONDONED. 6. BE THAT AS IT MAY, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH ON THIS M.A. SEEKING RECALLING OF THE EX PARTE ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NO BODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AND OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING MUST BE GIVEN. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS THAT T HE NOTICE OF MA 18/JP/2021_ SUNDER LAL ADVANI VS ITO 4 THE HEARING WAS SENT BY THE REGISTRY AT HIS OLD ADDRESS AND DUE TO CHANGE IN ADDRESS THE NOTICE WAS NOT BROUGHT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS UNATTENDED ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH DATED 17/05/2018 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AT ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER AND STAGE. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL AS PER REGULAR HEARING AND IN THIS REGARD, NOTICE MAY BE SENT TO BOTH THE PARTIES AT THE EARLIEST. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH OCTOBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO LANHI XLKA (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 05/10/2021 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SUNDER LAL ADVANI, KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O. WARD 1(1), KOTA. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (MA NO. 18/JP/2021) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR