Bawa Brothers, Shahabad V. ITO, Kurukshetra

MA 22/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6848 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH SMC BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.22/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 1050/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7-08 M/S BAWA BROTHERS, VS. THE ITO, SHOP NO.41, WARD-2, NEW GRAIN MARKET, KURUKSHETRA. SHAHABAD(MARKANDA), KURUKSHETRA. PAN NO. AAFFB6794H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.07.2018 ORDER BY THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE, PRA YS FOR RECALL OF EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 30.10.2017 IN ITA 1050/CH D/2016. THE LD. AR RELYING ON THE APPLICATION AND EVIDENCES FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT ON THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING I.E. 09.05.2017 THE COUNSEL WHO WAS HANDLING THE CASE COULD NOT APPEAR DUE TO ILL HEALTH. THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI HARI DASS, PARTNER OF THE COMPANY AFFIRM ING THESE FACTS HAS BEEN FILED STATING THAT THE COUNSEL DID NOT INFORM HIM, HENCE, HE ALSO COULD NOT SEEK TIME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HI S PRAYER THAT SINCE THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT HEARING THE AS SESSEE, THE SAID ORDER MAY BE RECALLED SO AS TO PROVIDE THE ASSESSEE A N OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SO AS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCE EDINGS. 2. THE LD. SR.DR CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE PRAYER HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 10.10.2017 IS RECALLED AND TH E APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES BE FORE THE BENCH CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, AS SET OUT HEREINABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE, THE MA /22/CHD/2018 IN ITA 1050/CHD/2016 PAGE 2 OF 2 ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED FOR REASONS BEYOND ITS CONTROL. ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REM AINING UNREPRESENTED ON THE DATE OF HEARING AS BONAFIDE AND TR UE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS RECALLED EXERCISING THE POWERS AS VESTED BY PRO VISO TO RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANSAL HOUSING CONS TRUCTION LTD. 274 ITR 131 (DEL). 3.1. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO THE ORIGIN AL POSITION AND THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 14.08.2018. FOR THE SAID DATE, NO NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES AS THE DATE WAS ANNOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.07. 2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.