Shri Kesharbhai Ghamarbhai Chaudhary, Palanpur V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1, Palanpur

MA 281/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4241 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETA SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : B BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M. & HONBLE SH RI N.S. SAINI, A.M.) M.A. NO. 281/AHD/2009 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 1402/AHD./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 KESHARBHAI GHAMARBHAI CHAUDHARY, POLANPUR -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALANPUR (P.A. NO. ABUPC 4055 G) (APPLICANT) (R ESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI MANISH J. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SMT. NEETA SHAH, SR. D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RE-CALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL D ATED 10.07.2009 IN ITA NO. 1402/AHD/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IT IS MENTIONE D THAT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT BUT IT SEEMS THAT POSTAL DEPARTMENT BY MIST AKE MENTIONED THE REMARK NOT FOUND. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, IN FACT, IN ALL CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THE SAME ADDRESS HAS BEEN GIVEN AND ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE ARE RECEIVED AT TH E VERY SAME ADDRESS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, A REQUEST WAS MADE THAT TRIBUNAL MAY RECALL ITS ORDER AND A FRESH DATE MAY RE-FIX THE APPEAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, SHRI MANISH J. SHAH, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT DATE OF HEARING MAY PLEAS E BE ANNOUNCED SO THAT ON THE GIVEN DATE, COMPLIANCE CAN BE MADE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, SMT. NEETA J. SHAH, LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUN SEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS TRUE THAT POSTAL AUTHORITIES RETURNED THE NOTICE OF HEARING WITH THE REMARKS NOT FOUND, WHICH RESULTED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. [38 I.T.D. 320 (D ELHI)]. ADMITTEDLY, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE RE -CALL OUR ORDER DATED 10.07.2009 IN ITA NO. 1402/AHD/2009 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE AP PEAL ON 10.03.2010. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS 2 M.A. NO. 281/AHD/2009 INFORMED TO BOTH THE SIDES. THEREFORE, THE FORMALIT Y TO ISSUE FORMAL NOTICE OF HEARING IS DISPENSED WITH. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08.01.2010 SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08 / 01 / 2010 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE RESPONDENT 3) CIT(A) CONCERNED, (4) CIT CONCERNED,(5) D.R., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.