M/s. Land Mark Colonisers, Jalandhar V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar

MA 31/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8892 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH SARNA
• Keywords: Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.31(ASR)/2012 (ARSING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.447 (ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :AACFL5129P M/S. LAND MARK COLONISERS VS. THE DY. COMMR. OF INC OME-TAX, PPR BUILDING, JALANDHAR. RANGE-III, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. DINESH SARNA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING:28/09/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:28/09/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH , DATED 16 H JULY, 2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.447(ASR)/201 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08, WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. DINESH SARNA DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE REASONS MENTIONED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR NON- 2 APPEARANCE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IS REP RODUCED AS UNDER: IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. THAT ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE CIT(A) JALANDHAR DATED 20.09.2010 HAD FILED AN APPE AL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS TRIBUNAL), WHICH THEREIN WAS MARKE D AS APPEAL NO.447(ASR)/2010 BY THE TRIBUNAL. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS THEREAFTER IN RECEIPT OF A NOTICE FROM THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT WAS INTIMATED THAT THE HEARING OF THE SAID APPEAL WAS FIXED BEFORE THE HONBLE TRI BUNAL AT AMRITSAR AS ON 16.07.2012. 3. THAT MOST SURPRISINGLY, SHOCKINGLY AND RATHER UN FORTUNATELY, THE COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE FIRM WAS IN RECEIPT OF AN ORDER DATED 16.07.2012 OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WHICH REVEALED T HAT COUNSEL HAD FAILED TO PUT UP AN APPEARANCE BEFORE THE HONB LE TRIBUNAL ON STIPULATED DATE, PURSUANT WHERETO THE HONBLE TR IBUNAL DISMISS THE APPEAL IN DEFAULT, IN LIMINE, AS UNADMI TTED WITH THE LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD NO FAULT ON ITS PART, COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE FIRM WAS READY TO APPEAR AND PUT UP HIS RE PRESENTATION BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL BUT ON JULY 15,2012 AT ABOUT 9.30 PM HE RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THE DEPARTMENT REP RESENTATIVE SH. TARSEM BHARTI THAT HE IS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT IN THE CASE (SUPRA), SO, HE NEED NOT TO COME AT AMRITSAR ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING. 5. THAT ASSESSEE FIRM HAD SUFFERED ON ACCOUNT OF L APSE ON THE PART OF ITS DULY INSTRUCTED COUNSEL, WHO WAS ALSO IN BON AFIDE BELIEF THAT HE NEED NOT TO COME AT AMRITSAR BECAUSE DEPART MENT REPRESENTATIVE WAS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT, SO, THEREFO RE ASSESSEE FILING THE PRESENT APPLICATION U/RULE 24 OF THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 R.W. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS SUPPORTED WITH AN AFFIDAVIT BY THE COUNSEL OF 3 ASSESSEE IN WHICH IT IS NARRATED THAT HE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT HE NEED NOT TO GO TO AMRITSAR, BECAUSE DEPARTMENT IS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT IN THIS CASE. 6. HONBLE SIR, IN THE LIGHT OF DULY SUBSTANTIATED FACT, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN EXERCISE THE PO WER VESTED WITH IT U/RULE 24 (SUPRA) R.W. SECTION 254(2) (SUPR A) AFTER TAKING THE COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT AS THE FAILURE ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO PUT UP A REPRESENTATION ON THE STI PULATED DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT ON ACCO UNT OF ANY LAPSE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE FIRM. THEREFORE, IT I S REQUESTED THAT BE PLEASED TO RECALL THE ORDER AND AFFORD AN OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT ASSESSE FIRM. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- FOR (LAND MARK COLONISER) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16.07.2 012. 3. THE LD. DR, SH. TARSEM LAL, DID NOT OPPOSE THE R EQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE THOROUGH LY GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATION. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED REASONA BLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16.07 .2012. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RECALL THE ORDER THE TRIBU NAL DATED 16 TH JULY, 2012 OF THIS BENCH AND FIX THE MAIN APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 26.12.2012. NO SEPARATE NOTICE BE ISSUED AS THIS ITSELF BE A NOTICE FOR HEA RING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 4 5. IN THE RESULT, M.A. NO.31(ASR)/2012 OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S. LAND MARK COLONISERS, JALANDHAR. 2. THE DCIT, R-III, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR. 4. THE CIT, JLR 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR. 5