Chandhana Ramesh (HUF), Rajahmundry V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry

MA 31/VIZ/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3147 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीऱीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणमपीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्रीद ु व्ि ू रुआरएऱरेड्डी, न्याययकसदस्यएिंश्रीएसबाऱाक ृ ष्णन, ऱेखासदस्यकेसमक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.31/Viz/2019(In आयकरअऩीऱसं./ I.T.A. No. 24/Viz/2019) (ननधधारणवषा/ Assessment Year :2012-13) & आयकरअऩीऱसं./I.T.A. No. 24/Viz/2019 (AY: 2012-13) Chandana Ramesh (HUF), Prop: Chandana Ramesh Shopping Mall, Chandana Cloth Complex, Tadithota, Rajamahendravaram. PAN: AABHC 8798 Q Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajamahendravaram. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यधथीकीओरसे/ Respondent by : Sri ON Hari Prasadarao, Sr. AR स ु नवधईकीतधरीख/ Date of Hearing : 22/07/2022 घोषणधकीतधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 O R D E R PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee seeking recalling of the Tribunal’s order passed in ITA No.24/Viz/2019 (AY 2012-13), dated 12/06/2019. 2 2. At the time of hearing of this Miscellaneous Application, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, considering the principles of natural justice as well as the exparte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal, we proceed to adjudicate this MA. 3. At the outset, vide this Miscellaneous Petition, it is the submission of the assessee before us that in the case of the assessee the Tribunal has passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee since there was no representation on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal. It was further submitted that the assessee had filed its written arguments/submissions before the Tribunal in support of its contentions raised in the appeal since the assessee could not appear in person before the Tribunal for the various reasons beyond the assessee’s control. It was also submitted that the assessee was under bonafide impression that the case would be decided on merits based on the material available on record as well as based on the written submissions filed by the assessee despite personal absence before the Bench at the time of hearing. In support of this argument the assesseerelied on Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. 3 RithaSabapathyvs. DCIT in Tax Case Appeal No. 169 of 2019, dated 19/02/2019 and pleaded that the order of the Tribunal may be recalled the case may be decided on merits. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that though the assessee was granted sufficient opportunities by the Tribunal, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal which implies that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. The Ld. DR further submitted that the onus is on the assessee to appear before the Tribunal and present his case which lacks in this case. Considering the same, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee and therefore the decision of the Tribunal need not be disturbed. 4. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record, submissions of the assessee as well as the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.24/Viz/2019. It is apparent from the appeal record that on various occasions the case was adjourned because none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent his case. Even on the date of hearing of the appeal ie.,12/06/2019 none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent his case therefore the Tribunal was under the impression that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his case. We are of the considered view 4 that though the assessee had filed written submissions by way of paper book, the onus is on the assessee to present his case and clarify the queries put forth by the Bench at the time of hearing of the appeal. This lacks in the present case. However, considering the principles of natural justice as well as respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. RithaSabapathy vs. DCIT (supra), the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No.24/Viz/2019 (AY 2012- 13), dated 12/06/2019 is hereby recalled and the MA filed by the assessee is allowed. 5. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is apparent that despite number of opportunities, none appeared before the First Appellate Authority and therefore, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the issues involved in the appeal and the quantum of additions, w e hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh and decide the issues on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, We also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in 5 accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, MA filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on the 22 nd August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (द ु व्ि ू रुआर.एऱरेड्डी) (एसबाऱाक ृ ष्णन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) न्याययकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखासदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated :22.08.2022 OKK - SPS आदेशकीप्रतिलिपिअग्रेपिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाररती/ The Assessee–Chandana Ramesh (HUF), Prop. Chandana Ramesh Shopping Mall, Chandana Cloth Complex, Tadithota, Rajamahendravaram. 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue –Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Rajamahendravaram. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Rajamahendravaram. 4. आयकरआय ु क्त (अऩीऱ)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajamahendravaram. 5. ववभधगीयप्रनतननधध, आयकरअऩीऱीयअधधकरण, ववशधखधऩटणम/ DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गधर्ाफ़धईऱ / Guard file आदेशधन ु सधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam