Shri Rajesh Jayantibhai Lakhmani, Vadodara V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Vadodara

MA 209/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1460 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN POPAT
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 209/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2 011-12 ( IN I.T.A. NO. 189/AHD/2016- A.Y. 2011-12 ) RAJESH JAYANTIBHAI LAKHMANI C-13, BHAGWAT NAGAR SOCIETY, NEAR ABHILASA CROSSING, NEW SAMA ROAD, VADODARA / VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD - 3(2), VADODARA / / PAN/GIR NO. : ABGPL2957G ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ROHAN POPAT, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DILEEP KUMAR, SR.D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 06/12/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/12/2019 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FI LED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALL OF EX PARTE ORDER DATED 24.11.2017 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER S.254(1) OF THE ACT WHEREBY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION OF ITS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE. M.A. NO. 209/AHD/18 [RAJESH J. LAKHMANI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 - 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LEAR NED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION CON TENDED AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMIS SED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'A' BENCH , AHMEDABAD EX-PARTE VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 24/11 /2017 WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- '2 THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 24.11.2017, AT THE TIME OF LAST HEARING COUNSEL FOR 'DIE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE DATE OF HEARING SCHEDULED TODAY. NONE APPEARED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION W AS FILED. NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE THROU GH RPAD. 3. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN P URSUING WITH THIS APPEAL AND THEREFORE,, BY FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF HAT, DELHI BENCH IN CJ7 VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LT D. 38 ITD 320 (DELHI), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IN LIMILINE.' 2. THAT AT THE OUTSET ITSELF THE APPELLANT MOST HUM BLY WISHES TO APPRAISE YOUR HONOURS' THAT THE FACTS THAT THE APP ELLANT IS INTERESTED, KEEN AND DESIROUS TO PROSECUTE H IS APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FURTHER HE IS INTERESTED TO ASSIST THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN PROPER MANNER. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY WISHES TO FURTHER APPRISE YOUR HONOURS' THAT AS NOTICE AFFIXI NG THE HEARING ON 24,11.2017 WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT T HUS HE WAS NOT AT ALL AWARE ABOUT THE AFFIXATION OF HEARING OF HIS APPEAL ON 24.11.2017 AND OBVIOUSLY THEREFORE HE OR HIS AUTHOR IZED COUNSELS COULD NOT APPEAR ON SAID DATE, TO PROSECUTE APPELLA NT'S APPEAL. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NO INTENTION FOR DEFAULT. HE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT/REASONABLE CAUSE BEYOND HIS CONTROL TO APPEAR AND PROSECUTE HIS APPEAL HIMSELF OR THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED COUNSEL ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING I.E. ON 24.11 .2017 5. THAT FROM THE FACTS NARRATED IN FOREGOING PARAS (2) AND (3), IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS GO T SINCERE DESIRE AND WILLINGNESS TO PROSECUTE HIS APPEAL AND IS KEEN TO ASSIST THE HON'BLE BENCH IN MOST APPROPRIATE AND PROPER MANNER AND THERE WAS MOST REASONABLE/SUFFICIENT CAUSE BEYOND THE CON TROL OF THE APPELLANT WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO NON APPEARANCE AN D/OR IMPROPER COMPLIANCE, IF ANY. M.A. NO. 209/AHD/18 [RAJESH J. LAKHMANI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 - 6. THAT IN VIEW OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB-SECTIO N (2) OF SECTION 254 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 CHALLAN FOR THE PAYMENT OF R EQUISITE FEE OF RS,500 IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE SATISFIED T HAT THE REASONABLE CAUSE EXISTED FOR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESS EE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ITAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, WE RE CALL THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'A' PASSED IN ITA NO. 189/ AHD/2016 DATED 24/11/2017(SUPRA) AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO LIST THE APPEAL FOR FRESH HEARING ON 05/02/2020 FIXED IN CONSULTATION WITH BOTH THE SIDES PRESENT. THEREFORE, FORMAL NOTICE OF HEARING IS DISPENSED WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR K EDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 16/12/2019 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA ! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- & / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ( ) *+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4 ,- / CIT (A) / 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 / 5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16/12/2019