Anand Agros Pvt.Ltd, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

MA 234/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7539 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DIWAKAR PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM

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. NOS.234/HYD/2011 (IN ITA NO.1213/HYD/2011) : ASST. YEAR: 2003-04 M/S. ANAND AGROS PVT. LTD., HYDERTABAD. (PAN AABCA 9916H) V/S- DCIT, CIR-3(2), HYDERABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI.A.V.RAGHU RAM RESPONDENT BY : SRI DIWAKAR PRASAD DATE OF HEARING: 20-01-2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 -01-2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKIN G THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL ITS ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.1213/HYD/2011 DAT ED 5 TH OCTOBER, 2011 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY IS NOT FUNCTIONING AND IS BEFORE B IFR AND ONLY SKELETON STAFF IS THERE AND THE MANAGEMENT IS BUSY IN ATTENDING TO THE BIFR. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMPANY FAILED TO SEND THE NOTIC E OF HEARING TO ITS COUNSEL TO ATTEND THE HEARING. HENCE, THERE WAS A LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILED BY IT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE ISSUE BEING A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT. THE NON- APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLE D ON FOR HEARING ON 5-10- 2011 WAS FOR THE REASONS OF INADVERTENT OMISSION AS STATED IN ITS PETITION AND NOT DUE TO LACK OF INTEREST IN PROSECUTING THE APPE AL. M.A.NO.195/HYD/2011 SURYAVANSHI INDUSTRIES, SBAD. ======================= 2 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND NOT AGREED WITH THE RECALLING OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE INSTANT CASE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 5 TH OCTOBER, 2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.1213/HYD/2011 AND D IRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THIS APPEAL FOR FRESH HEARING ON 22 -3-2012. THERE IS NO NECESSITY OF SERVING NOTICES TO THE PARTIES IN THIS REGARD. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE TREATED AS NOTICE OF HEARING AN D NO SEPARATE NOTICES MAY BE SERVED TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20-01-2012. SD/ - SMT.ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SD/ - CHANDRA POOJARI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DATED: 20-01-2012. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. ANAND AGROS LTD., 12 - 14, HAPPY TRADE CENTRE, 62, SD ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. 2. 3. 4 5. JMR* A CIT, CIR - 1(1), HYDERABAD. CIT (A)-II HYDERABAD. CIT, AP, HYDERABAD. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. M.A.NO.195/HYD/2011 SURYAVANSHI INDUSTRIES, SBAD. ======================= 3