Agnite Education Limited, CHENNAI V. ITO (OSD), CHENNAI

MA 265/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7683 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI D BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 265/MDS/2011 [IN I.T.A. NO. 608/MDS/2009] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 M/S. AGNITE EDUCATION LIMITED [FORMERLY TELEDATA INFORMATICS LTD.] NO. 37/1, TELEDATA TOWERS, VELACHERY TAMBARAM MAIN ROAD, VELACHERRY, CHENNAI 600 042. [PAN: AAACT2976K] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD), COMPANY CIRCLE III(2), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI T.N. PRAKASH, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 03.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.02.2012 ORDER PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 608/MDS/2009 DATED 18.11 .2011. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI T.N. PRAKASH, JCIT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, I.E. 16.11.2011, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REPRESENTED AS THE LD. COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAD RECORDED THE DATE OF HEARING AS 14.11.2011. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT A MISTAKE HAS HAPPENED WHILE RECORDING THE DATE OF HE ARING. IT WAS THE PRAYER OF THE M.P. M.P. M.P. M.P. NO. NO. NO. NO.265 265265 265/M/11 /M/11 /M/11 /M/11 2 LD. AR THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 24 OF ITAT RULES, 1963, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED AND THE APPE AL REHEARD. 3. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT REASONABLE CAUSE HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECALL OF THE SAID ORDER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IT IS THE SECOND TIME SUCH THING HAD HAPPENED AND STRICT VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE APPEAL HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO RECALL THE ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 24 OF ITAT RULE SHOWS THAT THE WORD USED THERE IS SHALL RECALL IF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS REASONABLE CAUSE. A MISTAKE HAD HAPPENED AS THE LD. COUNSEL WRONGLY RECORDED THE DATE OF HEARING, WHICH IS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 24 OF ITAT RULES, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE T RIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 608/MDS/2009 DATED 18.11.2011 STANDS RECALLED. THE APPEAL SHALL BE NOW POSTED FOR HEARING ON 09.04.2012 AND NO SEPARATE NOTICE WO ULD BE SENT TO THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING IN T HE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES ON 03.02.2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 03.02.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.