Sri N. Sudershan Reddy, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

MA 224/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7389 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIVEDITA BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: CHAITANYA KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 224/HYD/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 340/HYD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) SHRI N. SUDERSHAN REDDY HYDERABAD PAN: ACQPN2668B VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-9(3) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI CHAITANYA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SMT. NIVEDITA BISWAS DATE OF HEARING: 16.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.12.2011 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) THE ASSESSEE I S SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 4 TH OCTOBER, 2011 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE EX-PARTE WITHOUT PROSECUTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON THE EARLI ER OCCASION I.E., ON 14.6.2011 THE 'A' BENCH OF THIS TRI BUNAL DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED. THE NEXT D ATE OF HEARING WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE COMMUNICATED TO THE COUNSEL WITHIN TIME AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WELL DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MATTER COULD NOT BE REPRESENTED BEFO RE THE BENCH ON THE SAID DATE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE M.A. NO. 224/HYD/2011 SHRI N. SUDERSHAN REDDY ==================== 2 SUBMITTED THAT THE NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS FOR THE REASON STATED ABOVE WHICH WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY, SUBMITTED THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED AND ONE MORE OPPORTUNI TY MAY BE GIVEN TO ARGUE THE CASE ON MERIT. 3. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT OPPOSE THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSID ERED THE REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E., ON 4.10. 2011. IN OUR OPINION, THE REASON NARRATED BY THE ASSESSEE'S C OUNSEL WAS BONA-FIDE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A RE ASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 4.1 0.2011. 5. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, W E ARE INCLINED TO RECALL THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THIS TRI BUNAL DATED 4.10.2011 AND THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THIS CASE FOR HEARING ON 30.1.2012. THIS ORDER ITSELF WILL SERVE AS NOTICE OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. NO FRESH NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN TO EITHER OF THE PARTIES AS THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE _16 TH ___DECEMBER, 2011 M.A. NO. 224/HYD/2011 SHRI N. SUDERSHAN REDDY ==================== 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI N. SUDERSHAN REDDY, 17-1-383/A/47, VINAYNAG AR COLONY, SAIDABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT-VI, HYDERABAD. 4. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-9, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD TPRAO