M/s.. Amarjothi Textiles, Tiruppur V. ITO, Tiruppur

MA 211/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1345 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAVI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 211/MDS/2013 [IN ITA NO.352/MDS/2013] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S AMARJOTHI TEXTILES, 284A PALANGADU THOTTAM, KALIPALAYAM, SOMANUR, TIRUPPUR 641 668. [PAN : AAEFA4223F] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - I(2) TIRUPPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. RAVI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 17.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.01.2014 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BY MEANS OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASSESS EE SEEKS TO GET RECALLED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO.352/MDS/2013 DATED 11.04.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE G ROUND OF NON PROSECUTION OF THE APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BY FILING A DETAILED AFFIDAVIT, WHICH IS SELF EXPLANATORY, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NON- APPEARANCE ON THE DAY OF HEARING WAS NEITHER WILLFU L NOR WANTON AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL AND PRAYED FOR REC ALLING THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. M.P. M.P. M.P. M.P. NO. NO. NO. NO.21 2121 211 11 1/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 2 2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS OPPOSED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR HAS AL SO SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BARRED BY LIMITATI ON SINCE THERE WAS DELAY OF 409 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND DESPITE SERVICE O F DEFECT MEMO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE RECORD S AS WELL AS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF ORIGINAL APP EAL WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD PLACED ON RECO RD IN WHICH IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT TIME BARRED BY 409 DAYS. H OWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 409 DAYS IN NON-JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER. MOREOVER, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLIC ATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN EXECUTED AND FILED ANY VAKALAT/POWER OF AT TORNEY IN FAVOUR OF ANY ADVOCATE/C.A. SO, IT WAS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. NOW, THE ASSESSEE THROUGH I TS PETITION PRAYED FOR RESTORATION OF ITS APPEAL BY RECALLING THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED THE VAKALA T IN FAVOUR OF AN ADVOCATE ONLY ON 29.11.2013 AND THEREFORE, THE ADVOCATES AF FIDAVIT DATED 24.10.2013 IN THE NON-JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER HAS NO LOCUS STANDI SINCE THE ORIGINAL APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.04.2013. HOWEVER, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE FIND IT PROPER TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING OF THE APPEAL, WHICH MAY BY SUBJECTIVELY ADMITTED FOR HEARING, IF SATISFACTO RY/VALID REASON FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS EXPLAINED BY FILING THE CONDON ATION PETITION IN NON-JUDICIAL M.P. M.P. M.P. M.P. NO. NO. NO. NO.21 2121 211 11 1/MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 /MDS/13 3 STAMP PAPER. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECALL OUR EX-PARTE OR DER DATED 11.04.2013 FOR LIMITED PURPOSE AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX APPE AL IN REGULAR COURSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED TO THE EXTENT AS STATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 21 ST OF JANUARY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V.DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 21.01.2014 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.