Shri Sharadkumar Hasmukhlal Marwala, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(3), Surat

MA 199/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7566 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( VIRTUAL HEARING) MA NO.166/AHD/2017 (ARISING OUT IN ITA NO.2742/AHD/2013 & 2833/AHD/2013 FOR AY.2007-08) SATISHKUMAR HASMUKHLAL MARWALA, 3/148, RANA SHERI, INDERPURA, SURAT 395 002. [PAN: ADBPM 2832 J] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), SURAT. APP LICANT RESPONDEDNT MA NO.167/AHD/2017 (ARISING OUT IN ITA NO.2832/AHD/2013 FOR AY.2007-08) ASHWINKUMAR HASMUKHLAL MARWALA, 3/148, RANA SHERI, INDERPURA, SURAT 395 002. [PAN: ADBPM 2833 K] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), SURAT. APPLICANT RESPONDEDNT MA NO.199/AHD/2017 (ARISING OUT IN ITA NO.2834/AHD/2013 FOR AY.2007-08) SHARADKUMAR HASMUKHLAL MARWALA, 3/148, RANA SHERI, INDERPURA, SURAT 395 002. [PAN: ADBPM 2831 M] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), SURAT. APPLICANT RESPONDEDNT ASSESSEE BY SHRI PURVIN SHAH AR REVENUE BY MISS ANUPMA SINGHLA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 08.01.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.01.2021 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: MA NOS.166, 167 & 199/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2007-08 SATISHKUMAR HASMUKHLAL MARWALA, ASHWINKUMAR HASMUKHBHAI MARWALA & SHARADKUMAR HASMUKHLAL MARWALA. 2 1. THESE THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS (MA) ARE FILED BY THE THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSEE IN THE SAME GROUP FOR RECALLING CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 09.01.2017. IN ALL APPLICATIONS, THE APPLICANTS/ASSESSEES HAVE PLEADED CERTAIN COMMON CONTENTIONS FOR RECTIFICATION IN THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN ALL APPEALS, THUS, ALL APPLICATIONS ARE CLUBBED, HEARD AND ARE DECIDED BY COMMON ORDER TO AVOID THE CONFLICTING VIEW. FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS THE MA NO. 166/SRT/2017 IS TREATED AS LEAD CASE. IN THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT/ASSESSEE STATED THAT ALL THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27.10.2016, THE APPLICANT SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT VIDE HIS APPLICATION DATED 25.10.2016, SENT THROUGH COURIER. AFTER THAT THE APPLICANT NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE FOR HEARING OF APPEAL. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 09.01.2017. AS NO DATE OF HEARING WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT/ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REPRESENT ON 09.01.2017. 2. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE NON-APPEARANCE OF ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE. THE ASSESSEE IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING HIS APPEAL ON MERIT. THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT ANY DEFAULT IN APPEARANCE IN FUTURE, IF THE EX-PARTE ORDER IS RECALLED AND THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN LIBERTY TO ARGUE HIS APPEAL ON MERIT. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE MA NOS.166, 167 & 199/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2007-08 SATISHKUMAR HASMUKHLAL MARWALA, ASHWINKUMAR HASMUKHBHAI MARWALA & SHARADKUMAR HASMUKHLAL MARWALA. 3 UNDERTAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE VIGILANT IN FUTURE AND WILL NOT DEFAULT IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECTED THE SUBMISSION OF LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 09.01.2017 PASSED IN ALL THREE APPEALS. WE HAVE NOTED THAT OUR PREDECESSOR DECIDED THE APPEAL IN EX-PARTE PROCEEDING. HOWEVER, OUR PREDECESSOR WHILE PASSING ORDER DATED 09.01.2017, IN PARA 4 OF THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN LIBERTY FOR SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER ON SHOWING REASONABLE CAUSE. FURTHER, OUR PREDECESSOR HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERIT. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME WITH THE PLEA THAT HE IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING CASE AND THAT NON-APPEARANCE ON 09.01.2017 WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN LIBERTY TO GET THE APPEAL REVISED ON SHOWING REASONABLE CAUSE. FURTHER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE FOR DATE OF HEARING ON 09.01.2017 AND THAT ASSESSEE IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING HIS APPEAL ON MERIT. WE FIND REASONABLE CAUSE IN THE SUBMISSION MADE BY LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ORDER DATED 09.01.2017 IS MA NOS.166, 167 & 199/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2007-08 SATISHKUMAR HASMUKHLAL MARWALA, ASHWINKUMAR HASMUKHBHAI MARWALA & SHARADKUMAR HASMUKHLAL MARWALA. 4 RECALLED AND THE HEARING OF APPEAL IS FIXED ON 23.02.2021 FOR HEARING IT AFRESH. ISSUANCE OF FRESH NOTICE FOR HEARING IS DISPENSED WITH AS THE DATE OF HEARING IS FIXED WITH THE CONSENT OF PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE DOCUMENTS, IF SO DESIRED FIFTEEN DAYS IN ADVANCE, WITH COPY TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY. 5. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED COMMON CONTENTION IN ALL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, COMMON SUBMISSION WAS MADE REMAINING TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE GROUP CASES, CONSIDERING OUR DECISION IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NUMBER MA NO.166/AHD/2017, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS REFERRED ABOVE IN THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR OBSERVATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 8 TH JANUARY 2021 AT THE TIME OF HEARING IN VIRTUAL COURT. SD/- SD/- (DR.ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SURAT, DATED: 8 TH JANUARY, 2021 /SGR COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT