P.Ramanathan, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 267/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5988 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 267/MDS/2017 [IN I.T.A.NO. 1867 /MDS/201 6] / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 1 0 - 1 1 SHRI P. RAMANATHAN, OLD NO. 52 NEW NO. 13, STRINGERS STREET, CHENNAI 600 108. [PAN: AAAPR8182L] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , BUSINESS WARD I X (2), C HENNAI - 6 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N. MADHAVAN, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 1 0 . 11 .201 7 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 12 . 12 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : BY MEANS OF PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO RECALL THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 186 7/MDS/2016 DATED 23.09.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. BY REFERRING TO THE PETITION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PETITIONER HAD CHANGED THE ADDRESS AND INFORMED THE NEW OCCUPANT TO FORWARD ALL LETTERS AND HOWEVER, THE SAID PERSON FAILED TO FORWARD THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT M.P. NO . 267 /M/ 1 7 2 RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF HEARING, HE COULD NOT ABLE TO APPEAR AND PRESENT HIS CASE AND THUS, NON - APPEAR ANCE IS NEITHER WILFUL NOR WANTON AND PRAYED THAT THE EX - PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED AND THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2. THE LD. DR DID NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D. COUNSEL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. BY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE PETITIONER WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT REPRESENTING HI S CASE ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. WHILE ACCEPTING THE PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE RECALL OUR EX - PARTE ORDER DATED 23 .0 9 .201 6 AND POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 14 .12.2017. SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ENDORSED HAVING NOTED THE DATE OF HE ARING IN THE ORDER SHEET, NO SEPARATE NOTICE WOULD BE ISSUED TO BOTH PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE M.P. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 12 TH DECEMBER , 201 7 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVUR U RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 12 . 1 2 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.