M/S Paramount Impex, Ludhiana V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

MA 21/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5771 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.21/CHD/2017 IN ITA NO.1097/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) M/S PARAMOUNT IMPEX, VS. THE A.C.I.T., D-202-203, PHASE VI, CIRCLE-I, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAEFP3160G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI GAURAV SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SMT.MEENAKSHI VOHRA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.09.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE APPLICANT FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L DATED 28.12.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, WHICH WAS DECIDED AND DISMISSED EX-PARTE. 2. THE REASON FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION IS THAT NO NOTICE OF THE DATE OF HEARING WAS SERVED TO THE APPELLANT FIRM. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM SHIFTED ITS COU NSEL FROM THE OLD ONE TO MR. GAURAV SHARMA, CA FOR THE ABOVE SAID CASE AND FOR ALL THE RELATED GROUP CASES IN THE FIR ST WEEK OF DECEMBER, 2016. AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI SUNIL KAPO OR, PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM CONFIRMING THE ABOVE STATED FACTS TO THIS EFFECT WAS ALSO FILED ALONGWITH THE APPLICATION. 2 3. THE LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE APPOINTED DAT E OF HEARING TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. WE ARE THEREFORE O F THE OPINION THAT TO MEET THE ENDS OF NATURAL JUSTICE, T HE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD. EXERCISING THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL P ROVIDED IN THE PROVISO TO RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963, TO SET ASIDE AN EX-PARTE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPE AL IN CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATES REASONABLE CAUS E FOR NON-APPEARANCE, AND CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FAC TS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR RECALLING THE ORDER FOR FRESH HEARING, WHICH WE HEREBY DO. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASE FOR F RESH HEARING IN DUE COURSE AND ISSUE FORMAL NOTICE OF TH E SAME TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 13/09/2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3