IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. NO.20(ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO.228(ASR)/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT. RAJ SODHI W/O SH. JATINDER SINGH SODHI, R/O WARD NO.1, NR. VISHVKARMA GURDWARA, SARDULGARH, DISTT. MANSA. PAN:AZXPS-4758D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), MANSA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. K.R. JAIN (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. S.S. KANWAL (DR.) DATE OF HEARING: 20.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT:23.11.2017 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY AS SESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.09.2016. 2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT, AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG, HE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT BUT THE HONBLE TRIBUNA L HAD REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND ON THE BASIS OF MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE WITHOUT HEARING THE A SSESSEE AND THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE H ONBLE TRIBUNAL BE M.A NO.20 (ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.228(ASR)/2016) ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 2 RECALLED AND THE RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PLACE D ON A DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANS AL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. (2005) 274 ITR 131 (DEL), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF IN THE ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT ON MERITS, AND IF THE TRIBUNAL IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICI ENT CAUSE FOR HIS NON- APPEARANCE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL MAY SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL FOR DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SIMILARLY RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF SUPR EME COURT IN HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT (2007) 295 I TR 466 (SC). RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON MORE CASES AS MENTIONED IN THE MISC . APPLICATION AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE O RDER DATED 15.09.2016 BE RECALLED. 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY PLACED HI S RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 2 OF ITS ORDER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE COUNSEL OF THE ASS ESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE HONBLE TRIBUNA L HAD ALSO REJECTED THE SAME. THEREFORE, AS PER RULE-24 OF ITAT RULES T HE ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL CAN BE RECALLED. THE CONTENTS OF T HE RULE-24 ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. M.A NO.20 (ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.228(ASR)/2016) ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 3 RULE-24 WHERE, ON THE DAY FIXED FOR HEARING OR ON ANY OTHE R DATE TO WHICH THE HEARING MAY BE ADJOURNED, THE APPELLANT D OES NOT APPEAR IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WHEN THE APPEAL IS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL MAY DISPOSE OF THE APP EAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT: PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF AS PROVID ED ABOVE AND THE APPELLANT APPEARS AFTERWARDS AND SATISFIES THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR HIS NON-APPEARANCE, WHEN T HE APPEAL WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL SHALL MAKE AN ORDER SE TTING ASIDE THE EX-PARTE ORDER AND RESTORING THE APPEAL] THE VARIOUS CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AL SO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TR IBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 15.09.2016 IN ITA NO. 228(ASR)/2016 IS RECALLED AND REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.11. 2017 . SD/- SD/- (N.K.CHOUDHRY) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER DATED:23.11.2017. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER