Shri Ramesh ramlal Oswal, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

MA 312/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5916 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PREMCHAND C. PATIL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No. A.Y. Name of Applicant Name of Respondent/Revenue M.A.No.305 to 308/PUN/2023 Arising out of IT(SS)A Nos.81 to 84/PUN/2022 2013-14 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Shri Lalit Ramlal Oswal, 589/B, Lunkad Highland, Vidhyasagar Colony, Market Yard, Pune -411037 PAN : AAXPO4996J ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Pune M.A.No.309 to 314/PUN/2023 Arising out of IT(SS)A Nos.85 to 90PUN/2022 2012-13 to 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Ramesh Ramlal Oswal, 3,76/77, Lunkad Highland, Vidhyasagar colony. Market Yard, Pune -411037 PAN : AABPO3074H ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Pune आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These Miscellaneous Applications are filed by different but connected assessees’ seeking recall of the ex parte order dated 15.05.2023 passed by this Tribunal in appeals IT(SS)A. Nos. 81 to 90/PUN/2022 on the ground that the appellant(s) could not cause appearance when the matter was called on 09.05.2023 for the reason that Chartered Accountant, who was to represent the matter fell ill. 2. The ld. AR submits that the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for non-appearance before the Tribunal when the matter was called on. It is further submitted that owing to illness of the Chartered Accountant Mr. Pawan Chakrapani, who was to represent the matter no-body could appear before the Tribunal, hence an Assessee by : Shri Pawan Chakrapani & Shri Premchand C. Patil Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 05.07.2024 Date of pronouncement : 08.07.2024 Oswal Group 2 adjournment petition was moved. Therefore, the appeals be recalled in the interest of justice and be re-heard on merit. 3. For better appreciation, the factual background of the case is as under : As evident from the Miscellaneous applications filed by the assessees’, these appeals were adjourned seven times on earlier occasions at the request of the ld. Authorized Representative and each time the reason given for adjournment is the illness of the Chartered Accountant whose Power of Attorney was not even on record, when the matter was heard on 09.05.2023. The adjournment petition moved on the date of hearing was disposed of by this Tribunal by giving findings on the merits of the adjournment petition vide para 8 of the order. The Tribunal in Para 8 recorded a finding that there was no Power of Attorney executed in the name of Mr. Pawan Chakrapani nor was there any request from him. Then, the Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeals on merit by following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apex Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 442 ITR 1 (SC). 4. We heard the rival submissions and carefully examined the facts of the case. We find the applicant(s) vide these Miscellaneous are Applications seeking recall of the order in terms of Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules 1963 hereinafter also called ‘Rules’. The provisions of ‘Rule 24’ specifically lays down that if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for non- appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall set-aside the ex parte order and restore the appeal. The provisions of ‘Rule 24’ are in pari materia with Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Courts while interpreting the provisions of Order Oswal Group 3 9 of Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code had time and again laid down that the approach of the courts or Tribunal in deciding whether there was sufficient cause or not, is expected to consider whether or not the party was really interested to appear on the date fixed for the case; if he honestly intended to remain present and was not guilty of misconduct or gross negligence he should be given a chance. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rainbow Agri Industries Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Others 266 ITR 38. 5. In the present case, the reasons given by the applicant(s) for non- appearance on the date of hearing was that the Chartered Accountant Mr. Pawan Chakrapani had fell ill but it is admitted fact that there was no Power of Attorney executed in favour of the said Chartered Accountant to represent. Illness of a person who does not have Power of Attorney to argue the matter when the matter was called on, is irrelevant and cannot be construed as a sufficient and reasonable cause for non-appearance. Moreover, as evident from the averments made in the Miscellaneous Applications, the illness of the said Chartered Accountant was cited as reason for absence on earlier occasions too. Nor the applicant(s) could find out any mistake in the reasons given vide para 8 of the order for declining the request for adjournment. It is also pertinent to point out that the adjournment petition was moved by one Mr. B.C. Malakar, an Advocate by citing that he is out of station and the Chartered Accountant who was to represent the matter is sick. In this regard, we would like to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Siromani Tripathi & Ors. v. State of U.P & others in Civil Appeal Nos.9142 to 9144/2010, dated 07-02- 2019 wherein it was held that counsel being out of station cannot be a valid ground for adjournment of the case from hearing. These facts clearly go to demonstrate that the appellant(s) have no intention to Oswal Group 4 represent the matter, when the matter was called on and deliberately avoided the appearance before this Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that these are not fit cases to grant any relief in terms of Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and the Miscellaneous Applications are devoid of any merit. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the appellant(s) stand dismissed. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the appellants are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 08 th day of July, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 08 th July, 2024 Satish आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश क क क क ितिलिप ितिलिप ितिलिप ितिलिप अ ेिषत अ ेिषतअ ेिषत अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब च, पुणे / DR, ITAT,”A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.