IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. T .S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. NO. 23/(ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 430(ASR)/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AABFN1016E M/S. NORTHERN STEEL INDUSTRIES, SANAT NAGAR, SRINAGAR (J&K). VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (2), SRINAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. M. A. MIR (COST ACC OUNTANT) RESPONDENT BY: SH. S. S. KANWAL (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 27.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 27.10.2017 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY AS SESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.08.2016 IN ITA NO.430 (ASR)/2014. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING ON 10.08.2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MENTIONING THEREIN THE REASONS FOR NON ATTENDANCE, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THAT WE HAVE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF L D.CIT(A) JAMMU J&K ON 25/03/2011 THAT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 10/08/2016 FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. THAT AS PER SAID ORDER YOUR HONOUR HAS ISSUED N OTICE OF HEARING DATED 05/07/2016 FOR APPEARANCE ON 10/08/2016 THAT HAS NO T BEEN RECEIVED BY US. 3. THAT IN VIEW OF CURRENT POLITICAL UNREST PREVAI LING IN THE KASHMIR VALLEY FOR LAST SO MANY MONTHS KNOWN TO EVERYBODY, MOST OF THE ESSENTIAL SERVICES INCLUDING POSTAL SERVICES ARE DISTURBED. L T IS MOST LIKELY THAT THE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS STATED ABOVE HAS BEEN CAREL ESSLY DELIVERED TO WRONG LOCATION. MA NO. 23 (ASR)/2017 ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 430(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR:2007-08 2 4. AS IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE MADE AN APPEAL BEFO RE THIS HON'BLE COURT AGAINST HARSH ORDERS OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND A RE HOPEFUL OF SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF AND JUSTICE IN THIS HON,BLE COUR T. THAT IS INDICATED IN YOUR ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF BY WAY OF GIVING US PRIVILEGE TO APPLY FOR RECALLING IT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT NON APPEARANCE ON DATE FIXED FOR HEARING WAS NOT WILLFUL. IT IS PRAYED BEFORE YOUR HONOUR FO R RECALL OF DISMISSAL ORDER AND FIXATION OF FRESH DATE OF HEARING SO AS T O MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDE R DATED 10.08.2016 MAY BE RECALLED FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 3. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER HAS BEEN MADE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE IT NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED AS TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 4. THE LD. AR IN HIS REJOINDER INVITED OUR ATTENTIO N TO RULE 24 OF ITAT RULES AND SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF EX-PARTE ORDERS NO SUCH PERIOD HAS BEEN MENTIONED FOR RECALLING OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE EXPL ANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON ATTENDANCE ON THE SCHEDULED DATE O F HEARING. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RECALL THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.08.2016 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE MAIN APPEAL FOR HEARING IN DUE COURSE. THE ARGUMENT OF LD. DR THAT IT SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS IT HAS BEEN FILED BEYOND A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS HAS NO FORCE IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC MA NO. 23 (ASR)/2017 ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 430(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR:2007-08 3 PROVISIONS REGARDING RECALLING OF THE EX-PARTE ORDE RS AS CONTAINED IN RULE 24 OF ITAT RULES. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.1 0.2017. SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 27/10/2017 GP/SR./PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER