, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO.181/MDS/2015 (IN I.T.A. NO.1210/MDS/2015) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S SOORIYA HOSPITAL, NO.1/1, ARUNACHALAM ROAD, SALIGRAMAM, CHENNAI - 600 093 PAN : AALFS 1340 N V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORP. CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. ()*& /PETITIONER) ()+*,/ RESPONDENT) )*& . / /PETITIONER BY : SHRI ANIL NAIR, CA )+*, . / / RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2016 2!' . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.02.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION PRAYING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DA TED 12.08.2015. 2 M.P. NO.181/MDS/15 2. SHRI ANIL NAIR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED B Y THE PERSON WHO IS IN-CHARGE OF RECEPTION. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT BRO UGHT TO THE NOTICE OF MANAGEMENT. THEREFORE, NO ONE COULD APPEAR WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 12 TH AUGUST, 2015. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THERE IS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE TO PRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON MERIT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, DR. B. NISCHAL, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO REASONA BLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 12.08.2015 EVEN AFTER RECEIVING THE NOTICE OF HEARI NG BY RECEPTIONIST. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PERS ON WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE IN THE RECEPTION IS ALSO A RESPONSIBLE PER SON, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING ON THE DATE OF HEARING. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED NOTICE OF HEARING BY REGISTERED P OST. NOW THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE PERSON AT RECEPTION, WHO A CTUALLY RECEIVED THE NOTICE, FAILED TO BRING IT TO THE NOTI CE OF THE 3 M.P. NO.181/MDS/15 MANAGEMENT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT EVE N AFTER KNOWING THE DATE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THERE MAY BE VARIOUS REASONS FOR THE PER SON AT RECEPTION FOR NOT BRINGING IT TO THE NOTICE OF THE MANAGEMENT ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE FROM THIS TRIBUNAL. WHAT EVER MAY BE THE REASON THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE MANAGEMENT HAD NO OCCASION TO KNOW THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE. THEREFORE, THEY WE RE PREVENTED FROM APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HENCE THERE IS SUF FICIENT CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE T HIS TRIBUNAL ON 12.08.2015. THEREFORE, IN EXERCISE OF THE JURISDIC TION CONFERRED ON THIS TRIBUNAL UNDER PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE APPEL LATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 12.08 .2015 IS HEREBY RECALLED. NOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.1210/MDS/2015 IS RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THIS TR IBUNAL. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 29.03.2016 BEFORE THE REGULAR BENCH. 5. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4 M.P. NO.181/MDS/15 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. KRI. . )156 76'1 /COPY TO: 1. )*& / PETITIONER 2. )+*, /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 81 /CIT 5. 69 )1 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.