Sh. Nachhatar Singh, Ambala City V. CIT, Panchkula

MA 28/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5526 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.28/CHD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 368/CHD/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. NACHHATAR SINGH, VS. THE CIT, AMBALA CITY. PANCHKULA PAN NO. BZWPS3748D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ROHIT GOEL, RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 28.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.04.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE APPLICANT FOR SETTING ASIDE OF THE EX PARTE ORDER DATED 14.12.201 5 PASSED IN ITA NO. 368/CHD/2014 AND FOR RESTORING THE APPEAL OF THE AP PLICANT TO ITS ORIGINAL POSITION. 2. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 14.12.2015. THE APPL ICANT WAS BEING REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CA SHR I ROHIT GOEL IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WHO INADVERTENTLY NOTED THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE CASE AS 2 28.12.2015 INSTEAD OF 14.12.2015. DUE TO THIS INAD VERTENT ERROR, NEITHER THE APPLICANT NOR HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE COU LD COME PRESENT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 14.12.201 5. IT HAS THEREFORE, BEEN PLEADED THAT THE ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL WAS NOT INTENTIONAL BUT DUE TO THE ABOVE STATED REASONS. TH E ABOVE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN SUPPORTED WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF CA SHRI ROHIT GOEL WHO HAS ALSO CORROBORATED THE ABOVE VERSION OF THE APPLICANT. 3. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER SHEET OF THE APPEAL RELATING TO THE CASE FILE OF ITA NO. 368/CHD/2014 AND HAVE OBSE RVED THAT ON THE EARLIER DATES PRIOR TO 14.12.2015, THE AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REGULARLY APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 14.12.2 015 WAS NOT INTENTIONAL BUT DUE TO THE ABOVE STATED REASONS. IN VIEW OF TH IS, ORDER DATED 14.12.2015 IS HEREBY RECALLED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ORDERED TO BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL POSITION AND NUMBER. TH E REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL IN REGULAR COURSE. A COPY OF THIS ORDER BE PLACED IN THE APPEAL FILE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECORD AND READY REFERENCE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.04.2017 SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH APRIL, 2017 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR