M/s Magrath properties P Ltd, V. Assistant Commission er of Income tax, Bangalore

MA 29/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2941 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K GANESH RAO CIT III
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS LATA VISHNOI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH C BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NOS.29 & 30/BANG/2015 (IN I.T.A. NO S . 226 & 227 /BANG/20 1 4) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 ) M/S. MAGRATH PROPERTIES (P) LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, EMB ASSY POINT, 150, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 005 PAN AACCM 6577D VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF IN C OME T A X, CIRCLE 12(1), B A N GA L O R E . APPELLANT RESPONDENT. APPELLANT /PETITIONER BY : MRS. LATA VISHNOI, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. GANESH RAO, CIT - III (D.R) DATE OF H EARING : 10.04.2015. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 201 5 . O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, A.M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') HAS BEEN FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.226 & 27/BANG/2014 DT.5.1.2015 DISMISSING THE APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 2. IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PE TITIONER THAT NON - APPEARANCE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ONLY DATE OF HEARING ON 51.2015 WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE , SRI G. SITHARAMAN OF M/S. S. VENKAT RAM & CO., C.AS, CHENNAI WHO WAS TO REPRESENT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE BEFORE THE ITAT, BANGALORE WAS ALSO TO APPEAR FOR A PRE - HEARD CASE BEFORE THE ITAT, CHENNAI 2 M.P. NOS. 29 & 30 /BANG/ 2015 (IN ITA NOS.226 & 227/BANG/2014) BENCHES ON THE SAME DAY AND THEREFORE SENT AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT THROUGH COURIER. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE WRITTEN REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING ON 5.1.2015 WOULD BE ACCEDED TO. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS FOR THE ABOVE REASON THAT THE PETITIONER COULD NOT ATTEND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 5.1.2015. T HUS ACCORDING TO T HE PETITIONER, THE ABSENCE ON 5.1.2015 WAS NEITHER INTENTION NOR WILLFUL BUT DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT.5.1.2015 BE RECALLED FOR FRESH HEARING. T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS ALSO HEARD. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF THE M.P. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ABSENCE OF THE PETITIONER ON 1.5.2015 WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR W ILLFUL BUT WAS DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSES FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THI S M.P. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DT.1.5.2015 AND POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 16.7.2015. AS TH E DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, NO FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING NEED BE ISSUED BY THE R E GIST RY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH APRIL, 201 5 . SD/ - ( N.V. VASUDEVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER S D / - ( JASON P BOAZ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *REDDY GP