C.Krishnamurthy, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 237/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4004 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: R SIVARAMAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , ! ' ! # . $ , % &' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 237/MDS/2015 (IN ITA NO. 1166/MDS/2014) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI C. KRISHNAMURTHY, NO.74, NATTUMUTHU STREET, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI -18. PAN AAOPK8159L (APPLICANT) V. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-XV(4), CHENNAI - 34. ( RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI R. SIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 26.02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.03.2016 ( / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASSESSEE SEEK S RECALL OF THE EX PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 5.6.201 5. 2. PRIMARY FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 23.7.2014 AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 22.7.2014, THE CASE WAS - - MA 237/15 2 ADJOURNED TO 30.10.2014. AGAIN, AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 29.10.2014, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNE D TO 19.2.2015. ON THIS DATE, NONE PRESENT FOR THE ASS ESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 1.6.2015. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING ON 1.6.2015, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THAT DAY, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN ADJOU RNMENT PETITION STATING THAT THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL MR. G. GOPALAN IS NOT IN STATION ON ACCOUNT OF A MEDICAL EMERGENCY AND HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO APPOINT ANOTHER COUNSEL WITHIN THE SHOR T TIME SPAN. THE BENCH WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE REASON ADVANC ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REASONABLE, AS THERE IS NO MENTIONI NG OF ANY NAME IN POWER OF ATTORNEY, WHICH CAN BE SEEN FROM T HE FOLLOWING: ADJOURNMENT PETITION I.T.A.NO.1166/CHNY/2014 IN D BENCH FROM SHRI C. KRISHNAMURTHY, NO.74, NATTUMUTHU STREET, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI -18. PAN : AAOPK8159L TO THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH RAJAJI BHAVAN, CHENNAI. SIR SUB: I.T.A.NO.1166/CHNY/2014 IN D BENCH - - MA 237/15 3 THE REVENUE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEAL S)-V, CHENNAI HAS BEEN POSTED FOR HEARING ON 01.06.2015. NOW I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT OUR COUNSEL MR G. GO PALAN IS NOT IN STATION ON ACCOUNT OF A MEDICAL EMERGENCY AND THIS FACT WAS KNOWN TO ME ONLY YESTERDAY (31.05.2015). I WAS NOT IN A POS ITION TO APPOINT ANOTHER COUNSEL WITHIN THE SHORT TIME SPAN. HENCE I HUMBLY REQUEST THE HONOURABLE BENCH TO ADJO URN THE CASE AND POST THE CASE NEXT MONTH SO THAT OUR COUNSEL CO ULD REPRESENT AND DEFEND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. I HUMBLY REGRET FOR THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO YOU R OFFICE IN THIS REGARD. YOURS SINCERELY SD/- C.KRISHNAMURTHY. POWER OF ATTORNEY I, C. KRISHNAMURTHY, (PAN : AAOPK8159L0 DO HEREBY AUTHORIZE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX BEING QUALIFIED TO REPRESENT UNDER SECTION 288 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, TO REPRESENT IN THE ABOVE PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND TO SIGN, TO RECEI VE NOTICES AND ORDERS ON MY BEHALF. HIS STATEMENTS AND ABOVE SAID ACTS ARE BINDING ON THE RESPONDENT. SIGNED AT CHENNAI, THIS TH DAY OF 2015 SD/ RESPONDENT I, DO HEREBY ACCEPT AND AGREE TO R EPRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED RESPONDENT. AFTER REJECTING THE ADJOURNMENT AS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ON MERITS . 3. NOW, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INSTRUCTED HIS AURHOTIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. SRIKA NTH - - MA 237/15 4 SUBRAMANIAN, FCA TO REPRESENT THE CASE ON HIS BEHAL F BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING AS ON 1.6.2015. FURTHER, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT EARLIER LD. A R HAS ALSO INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE PERSON APPEARING ON HIS BEHALF BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS UNWELL, HE WOULD BE FILING AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER ON 1.6.2015 REQUESTING FOR ADJOU RNMENT. HOWEVER, WHEN HE RECEIVED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT CAME TO HIS SURPRISE THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED B Y THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT PROVIDING AN ADJOURNMENT. ACCORDING TO HIM , THE SITUATION AROSE ONLY AS A RESULT OF THE PERSON, WHO IS APPEARING FELL ILL AND NOT AS A DIRECT RESULT OF HIS CONDUCT. HENCE, HE REQUESTED FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM SHRI C.M. SHRIKANTH SU BRAMANIAN, FCA STATING THAT HE WAS NOT WELL AND PREVENTED BY S UFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND ENTI RE SITUATION AROSE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE ILLNESS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE ARGUME NT OF THE LD. AR STATING THAT THERE IS NO GOOD AND SUFFIC IENT REASON TO - - MA 237/15 5 RECALL THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS DE CIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBM ISSION OF THE LD. AR. ADMITTEDLY, ON EARLIER OCCASION, THE A SSESSEE, SHRI C. KRISHNAMURTHY FILED AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION STAT ING THAT THE COUNSEL, SHRI G.GOPALAN IS NOT IN STATION DUE TO ME DICAL EMERGENCY. FOR CLARITY, WE HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED THE EARLIER ADJOURNMENT PETITION. NOW, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN A FFIDAVIT OF ONE SHRI C.M.SHRIKANTH SUBRAMANIAN, FCA STATING THAT HE SUFFERED A CARDIAC ARREST AND ON ACCOUNT OF THIS PARTICULAR R EASON, HE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THIS REASON IS NOT T ALLIED WITH THE EARLIER ADJOURNMENT PETITION FILED ON 1.6.2015 AND THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IS ALSO DIFFERENT. IN EARLI ER ADJOURNMENT LETTER, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ASSESSEES COUNSEL WAS SHRI G. GOPALAN AND NOW, HE IS STATING THAT SHRI C.M. SHRIK ANTH SUBRAMANIAN, FCA IS ASSESSEES COUNSEL, WHO WILL RE PRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING SO, THE ASSESSE E IS NOT ABLE TO SATISFY THE BENCH THAT THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT - - MA 237/15 6 APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SCHEDULED DATE OF HEARING, I.E. ON 1.6.2015. HAD IT BEEN, IF PROPER VAKALAT I S FILED IN THE NAME OF SHRI G. GOPALAN OR IN THE NAME OF SHRI C.M. SHRIKANTH SUBRAMANIAN, IN EARLIER OCCASION, WE WOULD HAVE TAK EN A LIBERAL VIEW TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADJOURNMENT LETTER AND AFFIDAVIT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY TRIED TO PREPARE THE DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT THERE IS GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON FO R NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED BY THE R EASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECALL THE EARLIER ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO RECALL OUR EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 9 TH OF MARCH, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ! ' # $ ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) 011 231 /JUDICIAL MEMBER 231/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 0 /CHENNAI, =2 /DATED, THE 9 TH MARCH, 2016. MPO* - - MA 237/15 7 2> ?@A' BCA /COPY TO: 1. B'DE /APPELLANT 2. ?F1DE /RESPONDENT 3. 1 1 G (B') /CIT(A) 4. 1 1 G /CIT 5. AHI1 ?J /DR 6. I K /GF.