Ilaben Bharatbhai Amin, Gnahinagar V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

MA 332/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4602 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.S. SHUKLA
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member Ilaben Bharatbhai Amin 32, Suryaketu Villa Dehbam Dist. Gandhinagar C/o Bhupendra Patel H/16, Akshat Appartment, Memnagar, Ahmedabad PAN: ASAPA7549A (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-3, Gandhinagar (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. Respondent by : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 22-04-2022 Date of pronouncement : 27-04-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The present application has been filed by the assessee under the proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking recall of the order passed earlier on 23/02/2018 in the appeal, dismissing it in limine. M.A No. 332/Ahd/2018 (in ITA Nos. 1695/Ahd/2016) Assessment Year 2012-13 M..A Nos. 332/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No Ilaben Bharatbhai Amin vs. ITO 2 2. Ld.Cousel for the assessee stated that originally the assessee had made its impugned prayer vide an application filed u/s 254(2) of the Act dated 27-12- 2018. The same was delayed by 128 days as per limitation prescribed under the section. Ld. Counsel for the stated that on noting that the assesses appeal needed to be recalled for hearing as Per Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal ) Rules,1963, being exparte, and for which there was no limitation prescribed also ,the present application was filed before us. He placed before us copy of the order passed by the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Mansukhbhai M. Donga vs. ITO in M.A. No. 137/Ahd/2017 dated 04/05/2021, for the proposition that there was no limitation prescribed for filing application for recall of orders, as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that only one notice of hearing was served on the assessee and as per the order itself, the notice had returned unserved and thereafter without granting any further opportunity, the appeal was dismissed simply for want of prosecution without even dealing with the merits of the case. 2.1. He therefore requested for recall of the appeal, for hearing afresh. 3. The Ld. D.R. did not object to the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 4. In view of the above, since the earlier order passed by the ITAT in the case of the assessee was an exparte order that too not on merits and after giving only one opportunity of hearing to the assessee, We consider it fit to recall the order for hearing afresh. M..A Nos. 332/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No Ilaben Bharatbhai Amin vs. ITO 3 The appeal is directed to be fixed for hearing on 26/05/2022. Order was pronounced in open court. 5. In effect, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. 6. The order was pronounced in open court in front of both the parties. No separate notice of hearing be issued. Order pronounced in the open court on 27 -04-2022 Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER True Copy ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 27/04/2022 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद