M/s. Choksi Surendrakumar Rasiklal, Nadiad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2, Nadiad

MA 305/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4343 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: P B DOSHI

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, AM M/S CHOKSI SURENDRAKUMAR RASIKLAL, CHOKSI BAZAR, NADIAD V/S . INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-2, NADIAD. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI P.B.DOSHI, AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI C. K. MISHRA, DR O R D E R PER D.C.AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARISING OUT OF THE T RIBUNALS ORDER IN ITA NO.1167/AHD/2006 FOR ASST. YEAR 2002-03, HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THIS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 5.8.2009 THE APPEA L WAS DISMISSED EX PARTE. THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE, AS STATED BY THE AS SESSEE, ARE THAT THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IS STAYIN G AT ANAND AND HE WAS COMMUTING FROM ANAND TO AHMEDABAD, BUT DUE TO TRAFF IC JAM, HE COULD NOT REACH THE TRIBUNAL IN TIME. BY THE TIME HE REAC HED THE TRIBUNAL, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY HEARD EX PARTE. SO HE COULD NOT REMAIN PRESENT WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. IN TH IS CONNECTION THE M.A. NO.305/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1167/AHD/2006 ASST. YEAR : 2002-03 2 AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI P.B. DOSHI, C.A. HAS BEEN FILED, THE CONTENTS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: AFFIDAVIT I, CA PRAMESH B. DOSHI SON OF BHUPENDRARAY GOKALDAS DOSHI R/O 15, KARUNA SOCIETY, AMUL DAIRY ROAD, ANAND (388001) DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER :- I AM STAYING AT ANAND AND I WAS COMMUTING FROM ANAN D TO AHMEDABAD FOR THE HEARING ON 05.08.2009. BUT DUE TO HEAVY TRA FFIC ON THAT DATE, I COULD NOT REACH TO THE COURT ROOM FOR THE HEARING I N TIME. DUE TO TRAFFIC JAB, I REACHED LATE TO THE COURT ROOM. BY THE TIME I REACHED TO THE COURT ROOM, THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT CHOKSI SURENDRAKUMA R RASIKLAL WAS ALREADY HEARD. DUE TO THE REASON STATED ABOVE I COULD NOT REMAIN P RESENT WHEN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. THE ABOVE FACTS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT TO GIVE FALSE AFFIDAVIT IS AN OFFENCE. SD/- CA PRAMESH B. DOSHI ANAND: DATE 03.03.2010 3. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE REASONS PUT FORWARD BY THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE GEN UINE. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, IT WILL BE JUST AND PROPER TO GIVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND RECALL THE ORDER. THE ORDER IS REC ALLED AND THE APPEAL IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 5 TH APRIL, 2010, WHICH HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO ACT ACCORDI NGLY. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLO WED. SD/- SD/- (T.K. SHARMA) (D.C.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 5/3/2010 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 5/3/2010