M/s. Sarvodaya Shramik Kalyan Samiti, Sehore V. The ACIT, Bhopal

MA 31/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5261 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ARYA BHATT

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.31/IND/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 109/IND/2010) A.Y. 2005-06 SARVODAYA SHRAMIK KALYAN SAMITI, SEHORE PAN AABAS 9987 N APPLICANT VS. ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI ARYA BHATT, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K. MITRA, SR. DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT I S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALLING OF THE EXPARTE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 20.5.2010. 2. DURING HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, MR . ARYA BHATT, LD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL BY SUBMITTING THAT THE NOTICE SENT BY THE REGISTRY OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS NEVER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THE ITS EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN A FFIDAVIT. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI P.K. MITRA, LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY CONTENDING THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO REMAIN PRESENT ON THE APPOINTED DATE AND IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. 2 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS NON-AP PEARANCE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE APPOINTED DATE, THEREFORE, THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.5.2010 IS RECALLED. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE APPEL LANTS/RESPONDENTS AND NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD. THE APPEAL I S FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 31.12.2010. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED NOT TO SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASON O N THE NEXT DATE I.E. 31.12.2010. SINCE THE NEXT DATE WAS PRONOUNCED IN T HE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES, TH EREFORE, NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON 19.11.2010. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19.11.2010 {VYAS} COPY TO APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE