Shri . Rajendra Prasad Uppalapati, Hyderabad V. DCIT - 5(1), Hyderabad

MA 3/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7789 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K VISHWANATHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: K JAYADEV
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 637/HYD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD UPPALAPATI, HYDERABAD PAN: AAFPU4903R VS. DCIT - 5(1) HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI K. JAYA DEV RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K. VISHWANATHAM DATE OF HEARING: 2 4 .0 2 .2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.02.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE SE EKS RECALL OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 637/HYD/2011 DATED 11.10.2011. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO INTIMATE THE DATE OF HEARI NG TO HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DUE TO HIS ABSENCE FROM H YDERABAD ON AN URGENT BUSINESS WORK. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WHEREIN HE HAS GIVEN THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HE ARING IS NOT WILFUL OR WANTON AND THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE IS VERY MUCH INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE HIS APPEAL. ACCO RDINGLY, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THE BENCH TO PR OVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEND THE CASE ON MERIT. M.A. NO. 03/HYD/2012 SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD UPPALAPATI ================== ==== 2 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION FOR RECALLI NG THE EX- PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GON E THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE IN REPRESENTING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE, THEREFORE, A RE INCLINED TO RECALL THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T .A. NO. 637/HYD/2011 DATED 11.10.2011. THE REGISTRY IS DIR ECTED TO POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 4.6.2012. NO NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE SERVED ON BOTH THE PARTIES AS THIS ORDER I TSELF WOULD SERVE AS NOTICE OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD UPPALPATI, 34/A, 1 ST FLOOR, RAGHAVA RATNA TOWERS, CHIRAG ALI LANE, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - (5)(1), 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A) - V, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT - IV, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD TPRAO