, , , , ' ' , ,, , , .'# '#, $% $ & '' $# () 183//2011 . 1355//2011 $ 12# # 3) 2006-07 7$# 89 9, :, $;- II , PROP. $ 9 < , =#, >, $7, # # # # ?;@A) =B<) 392220. (E $% . AGTPS9330C ) ( (( ($ $ $ $) ) ) ) ( (( (G2EH G2EH G2EH G2EH) )) ) $ I J $) ='# K, .. G2EH I J $) .., LM '=8 G# #N I %) 03/02/2012 O'3 I %) 07/02/2012 $9 $9 $9 $9 , , , , P L) P L) P L) P L) Q '' $# P, # L #$ , ' ' , P . 1355//2011, # 3) 2006-07 $ L $9 ?# ) 05/09/2011 ' LR ( RECALL ) #$ $ #$# ? S # L #$ #T# G G ? S) ( IN ENGLISH VERSION ) '1) THE APPLICANT HEREIN WAS APPELLANT IN ITA NO. 1 355/AHD/2011 FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CI T (A). 2) THE ABOVE REFERRED MATTER CAME BEFORE THE 'SMC B ENCH' COMPRISING OF HON'BLE SHRI T.K.SHARMA, J.M. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 05/09/2011 HAS DECIDED THE ABOVE APPEAL. SINCE APPE LLANT DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING THE MATTER WAS DISMI SSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE CONCLUSION DERIVED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLANT ORDER DATED 05/09/2011 IS AS UNDER: I. 'THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (CENTRAL)- II, AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2 '' $# () 183//2011 . 1355//2011 $ 1U =V # 3) 2006-07 II. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 05/09/2011. DESPITE THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST WITH A/D FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 05/09/2011, NEITHER ANYBODY A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT O F THE HEARING. THEREFORE, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. WHILE TAKING THIS VIEW, WE DERIVE SUPPORT F ROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. C.W.T. [223 ITR 480] AND ITAT, DELHI BEN CH IN CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD [38 ITD 320]. RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE DISMISS THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSEC UTION. III. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED.' 3. SINCE NON-APPEARANCE BY THE APPLICANT WAS BEYON D HER CONTROL THE APPLICANT HAS MADE PRESENT APPLICATION WITH A REQUEST TO RECA LL HON'BLE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DATED 05/09/2011 FOR REASON STATED BELOW. 4. THE HON'BLE BENCH IN PARA 2 ORDER HAS OBSERVED T HAT NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE APPLICANT. HOWEVER, NONE ATTENDE D DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE. 5. THE APPLICANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT NOT ICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE HEARING ON 05/09/2011 AND THE S AID NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY APPLICANT ON 03/09/2011. BUT DUE TO THE RELIGIOU S FESTIVAL OF PARYUSHAN, APPLICANT WAS ABSENT FROM OFFICE FOR FEW DAYS AND C OULD NOT ATTEND TO THE NOTICE. AS THE CONCERNED PERSON WAS NOT AVAILABLE A T OFFICE, APPLICANT WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING. FURTHER, THE NOTIC E WAS NOT SENT TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AND THEREFORE, NO AD JOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. THE MATTER THEREFORE COULD NOT BE ATTENDED O N THE DATE OF HEARING. WE THEREFORE, REQUEST YOUR KIND OFFICE TO RECALL THE M ATTER AS THE APPLICANT HAS GENUINE REASON FOR NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING. THE N ON-APPEARANCE WAS NOT PURPOSEFUL. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ABOVE, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT IN ANY CASE OF NON-ATTENDANCE OF THE PARTY OR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVE CAN NOT BE USED AS A GROUND FOR INFLICTING THE PUNISHMENT TO THE AS SESSEE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT AS N ON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITS REPRESENTATIVE WAS FOR VERY JUST A ND REASONABLE GROUNDS AS POINTED OUT ABOVE AND THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL FAIL URE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO REMAIN ABSENT FROM THE HEARING. IN VIEW THEREOF, IT MAY BE PASSED AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE APPLICANT. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION YOUR APPLICANT M OST RESPECTFULLY PRAYS AS UNDER: 3 '' $# () 183//2011 . 1355//2011 $ 1U =V # 3) 2006-07 A. THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL DATED 05/09/2011 MAY PLEASE BE RECALLED AND THE APPEAL BE DECIDED AF RESH AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THIS MATTER. B. SUCH OTHER AS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY DE EM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRESENT APPLICATION. ' 2. #$ '#W &W ' # 3. $ $ XW # L $ #$# '< #$ $ Y, , # L $ $ Z ? $ & #N I % ' # L $ P 1[E #$ \ 'K '#$ 1< E # , , , ' ' , P . 1355//2011 , # 3) 2006-07 $ L $9 ?# ) 05/09/2011 ' L R ( RECALL ) $ Z ] [7; ' #$9 $$ Z Q ' E \ #N $ # \ 4. L B, # L P ? 8 '' $# ' _ $ Z / // /- -- - / // /- -- - .'# '# ($% ) ( ) ?# ) 07/02/2012 $9 $9 $9 $9 I II I G G G G' '' ' `$'3) `$'3) `$'3) `$'3) 1. EH- 2. G2EH- 3. :, 4. :-(), 5. '=8 G# , , 6. 8 KQ $9 $, /2' G/ 1 / 7 ,