K.Gopi, Ernakulam V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 30/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6315 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: N QUADIR HOSEYN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 30/MDS/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 634/MDS/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI K. GOPI, 31/556-8, PAZHANILLATH HOUSE, KACHAPILLI ROAD, PONNURANI, VYTILLA, ERNAKULAM-682 019. V. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD-IV(3), CHENNAI. (PAN: AHOPG9049G) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : N. QUADIR HOSEYN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SRINIVAS O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 634/MDS/2010 DATED 09-03 -2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. M..A. NO. 30/MDS/2011 2 2. SRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SRI B. SRINIVAS, DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE RE VENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO BE REPRESENTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS HE WAS HELD UP IN TRAFFIC JAM ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL MAY BE RECALLED. 4. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE R ECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL O F THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THA T HIS COUNSEL WAS HELD UP IN A TRAFFIC JAM AND HE WAS UNABLE TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING IN TIME. A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISO TO RULE 25 OF THE ITAT RULES SHOWS THAT THE WORD USED IS SHALL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE. THE FACT THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE WAS HELD UP IN THE TRAFFIC JAM IS TO BE ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSEE BE GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 634/MDS/2010 DATED 09-03-2011 STANDS RECALLED AND THE APPEAL IS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 29-06-2011. NO NOTICE NEEDS TO BE SENT TO THE PARTIES AS BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN I NFORMED ABOUT THE ABOVE DATE M..A. NO. 30/MDS/2011 3 OF HEARING IN THE OPEN COURT ITSELF. IN THE RESULT , THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08-04-2 011. SD/- SD/- ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 08 TH APRIL, 2011. H. COPY TO: APPLICANT/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE