, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! '#,% &' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (( / M.P. NO.272/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.69/MDS/2017) ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI G. SUDHAKAR, M/S SUDHAKAR AGENCIES, NO.9/24, KANAN FLOUR MILL STREET, STUART PET, ARAKKONAM, VELLORE 631 001. PAN : BMKPS 1043 N V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), VELLORE. (,-) /PETITIONER) (,.-// RESPONDENT) ,-) 1 2 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ,.-/ 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT 3 1 4% / DATE OF HEARING : 08.12.2017 5'* 1 4% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.12.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION PRAYING FOR RECALL OF ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 28.02.2017. 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF HEARING AN D INSTRUCTED HIS 2 M.P. NO.272/MDS/17 CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 28.02.2017. HOWEVER, DUE TO TRAFFIC JAM, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REACH THE TRIBUNAL IN TIME ON 28.02.2017, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ACCORDIN G TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL ABSENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REASONAB LE CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM NOT APPEARING BEFORE TH IS TRIBUNAL ON 28.02.2017. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATE D 28.02.2017. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED NOTICE OF HE ARING FROM THIS TRIBUNAL AND INSTRUCTED HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 28.02.2017. THE CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANT COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL SINCE HE COULD NOT REAC H THE TRIBUNAL IN TIME. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PUT TO HARD SHIP MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT REA CH THE TRIBUNAL 3 M.P. NO.272/MDS/17 ON 28.02.2017 IN TIME. GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE INTERESTS OF THE R EVENUE IN ANY WAY. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION TH AT GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE CASE ON ME RIT WOULD DEFINITELY PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. ACCORDING LY, IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED ON THIS TRIBUNAL UNDER RULE 24 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DA TED 28.02.2017 IS HEREBY RECALLED. 5. NOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.69/M DS/2017 IS RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE REGISTR Y IS DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL FOR FINAL DISPOSAL ON 05.02.2018. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING IS ANNOUNCED IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PA RTIES, IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THE REGISTRY TO ISSUE A SEPARATE N OTICE OF HEARING. IN OTHER WORDS, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE TREAT ED AS NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 05.02.2018. 6. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 4 M.P. NO.272/MDS/17 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH DECEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! '# ) ( ... ) (SANJAY ARORA) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 8 TH DECEMBER, 2017. KRI. 1 ,48( 9(*4 /COPY TO: 1. ,-) / PETITIONER 2. ,.-/ /RESPONDENT 3. 3 :4 () /CIT(A) 4. 3 :4 /CIT 5. (; ,4 /DR 6. ) < /GF.