T.Janaki, Erode V. DCIT, Salem

MA 181/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4722 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A .NO.181/MDS/2016 [IN I.T.A.NO.861/MDS/2015] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 MS.T.JANAKI, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 111-N, ARANMANAI NAGAR, OF INCOME TAX, AYAKATTUR, CAUVERY R S, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PALLIPALAYAM, ERODE 638 007. NO.3, GANDHI RO AD, (PAN : ACCPJ6834B) V. SALEM 636 007. (APPLICANT) ( /RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI G.BASKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT !'# /DATE OF HEARING : 09.09.2016 $%& !'# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.09.2016 /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETIT ION PRAYING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 21.08.2015. 2. SHRI. G.BASKAR, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ORIGINALLY FIXED FOR HEA RING ON 10.07.2015. IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 21.08.2015 AND IN FACT THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE 2 M.A. NO. 181/MDS/2016 ASSESSEE INTENDED TO ENGAGE AN ADVOCATE. HOWEVER, S HE COULD NOT DO SO IMMEDIATELY. THEREFORE, SHE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 21.08.2015 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 21.08.2016 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO HEAR THE CASE ON MERIT. 3. WE HEARD SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVE D ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ENGAGE A COUNSEL BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARI NG. THEREFORE, SHE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE OBJECT OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS TO ASSESS THE CORRECT TAXA BLE INCOME AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECA USE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ENGAGE A COUNSEL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED, TH IS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS CANNOT BE A REASON TO PENALISE. G IVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BY RECALLING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL MA Y NOT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN ANY WAY. THE VERY OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDI NGS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT IS TO ASSESS THE TAXABLE INCOME AND LEVY TAX THEREON. MOREOVER, GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, TO ARGUE THE APPEAL ON MERIT, WOULD DEFINITELY PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. THEREFORE, IN EXERCISE OF POW ERS CONFERRED ON THIS TRIBUNAL UNDER PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 21.08.2016 IS HEREBY R ECALLED. 3 M.A. NO. 181/MDS/2016 4. NOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.861/MDS /2015 STANDS RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL FOR FINAL DISPOSAL ON 01.11.2016. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING IS ANNOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH PARTIES, NOTICE OF HEARING NEED NO T BE ISSUED TO EITHER PARTY FOR HEARING ON 01.11.2016. IN OTHER WORDS, COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE TREATED AS NOTICE FOR HEARING. 5. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, '( /DATED, THE 09 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. SP. ! )'*+ ,+&' /COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. )-./ /RESPONDENT 3. 0' ( )/CIT(A) 4. 0' /CIT 5. + 1 )' /DR 6. 23 4 /GF.