Jain Dass Jain, Ferozepur Cantt. V. The Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur

MA 21/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4622 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.21(ASR)/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.480(ASR)/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN: AEBPJ7463H SH. JAIN DASS JAIN, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S. ARIHANT TRADING CO; FEROZEPUR. SUJI BAZAR, FEROZEPUR CANTT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH.CHARAN DASS, DR DATE OF HEARING: 05/08/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/08/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION AGAINST THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DATED 2 1.12.2015, PASSED IN ITA NO. 480(ASR)/2014, FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. 2. NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEV ER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, DA TED 12.01.2016, EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE DAT E OF HEARING: MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY, IT IS SUBMITTED AS UN DER: 1. THAT THIS MISC. APPLICATION ARISES OUT OF ITA N O .480(ASR)/2014 , WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION FOR THE REASON THAT ON APPOINTED DATE (I.E. ON 21/12/2015), NOBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF CASE WAS SENT BY POST ON 03/12/2015 VIDE LETTER DATED 03/12/2015, AND MA NO.21(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 2 WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPELLANT OR THE COUNS EL ABOUT THE FIXATION OF THE CASE, ( AS WAS STATED THA T THE CASE WAS TO BE FIXED FOR 21/12/2015), AS NO FORMAL NOTICE WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APPELLANT OR TO THE COUNSEL AND THE CASE WAS VIDE THE LETTER DATED 03/12/2015 WHEN THE DATE OF HEARING WAS 08/12/2015, ALONG WITH THE PAPER BOOK AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS PROPERLY ANNEXED WITH A REQUEST TO ADJOUR N THE CASE AND SINCE NO FORMAL NOTICE OR COMMUNICATIO N WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THE FIXATION OF THE CASE, HO W CAN ONE KNOW ABOUT THE DATE OF FIXATION OF THE CASE AND DISMISSING THE CASE FOR THE REASON THAT NOBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS, IS WHOLLY WRONG AND IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE CASE BE RE-CALLED, FOR THE SAKE OF JUSTICE. 2. THAT LOOKING AT THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE S, THE APPELLANT IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE CASE AS HE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTS, ALONG WITH THE PAP ER BOOK, PROPERLY INDEXED, THEN ASSUMING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE CASE IS A WRONG NOTION AND DISMISSING THE CASE FOR THIS REASO N SEEMS TO BE UNJUST AND MOREOVER, WHEN THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION REGARDING THE DATE OF FIXATION OF THE CASE, I.E. FOR 21/12/2015. 3. THAT IT IS PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL, AS SUPRA, BE RECALLED AS THE APEX COURT RULED IN THE FAMOUS CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC)THAT 'NO PARTY APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, B E IT AS ASSESSEE OR THE DEPARTMENT, SHOULD SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH T HE INHERENT POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL.' 4. THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN HEARD IN T HIS CASE, IT SEEMS UNJUST TO DISMISS THE SAME AND IT IS PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE RECALLED BY ALLOWING THIS MISC. APPLICATION. SINCE NO NOTICE OR INTIMATION REGARDING THE FIXATION OF THE CASE WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT OR THE COUNSEL, THERE SEE MS TO BE NO FAULT ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER BE RECALLED BY ALLOWING THIS MISC. APPLICATION AS THE SAME WOULD M EET ENDS OF JUSTICE AS IS EXPECTED FROM THE TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, WHAT THE TRIBUNALS ARE KNOW FOR., MA NO.21(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 3 KINDLY RECALL THE ORIGINAL APPEAL BY WAY OF ALLOW ING THIS MISC. APPLICATION. 3. THE LD. DR DID NOT OPPOSE THE REQUEST MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD. DR AND HAVING GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE APPOINTED DATE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE, WE RECALL THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DATED 21.12.2015 A ND FIX THE MAIN APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 03.10.2016. THE REGISTRY IS D IRECTED TO INTIMATE THE DATE OF HEARING TO THE PARTY WELL IN ADVANCE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/08/ 2016. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /SKR/ DATED: 22/08/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. JAIN DASS JAIN, FEROZEPUR CANTT. 2. THE ITO, FEROZEPUR. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.