Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-3(3), Kanpur

MA 21/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0069 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J SUDHAKAR REDDY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.21.LKW/2012 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 556/LUC/2011] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997 - 98 SHRI. VIJAY P AL SINGH PROP. MAA DURGA ENTERPRISES 82, BARRA GOAN, KANPUR V. INCOME - TAX OFFICER 3(3) KANPUR PAN: AHXPS9550P (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP LIC ANT BY: SHRI. ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 18.03.13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.03.13 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR R EDDY : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A REQUEST TO RECAL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 2.2.2012 IN ITA NO. 556/LUC/2011 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE E X - PARTE. 2 . T HE ASSESSEE IN TH IS APPLICATION STATED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 30.1.2012 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.1.2012 AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI. SHYAM PYARE KAUSHAL WAS OUT OF STATION AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNWELL, T HE REFORE, AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY ADJOURNED THE CASE TO 2.2.2012. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN NOTE OF THIS DATE OF ADJOURNMENT AND DUE TO THIS MISTAKE : - 2 - : ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRESENT BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE FIXED DATE I.E. 2.2.2012 AND THE BENCH H AS DISPOSED OF THE CASE EX - PARTE. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HIS ABOVE CONTENTIONS. MEDICAL CERTIFICATE I S ALSO FILED ON RECORD. 3 . THE LD. D.R. OPPOSED THE ABOVE CON TENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 2.2.2012 IN ITA NO. 556/LUC/2011 SHOULD BE RECALLED AND THE APPEAL BE POSTED FOR FRESH HEARING ON 6.5.2013, AS THE ASSESSE E HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE I N APPEARING BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THIS ORDER IS PASSED UNDER PROVISIONS OF RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES. 5 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR FRESH HEARING ON 6.5.2013. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.3.2013. SD/ - SD/ - [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] [ J SUDHAKAR REDDY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22.3.2013 JJ: 2003 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR