Tanfac Industreis Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 338/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6186 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2018
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAHADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUN KARTHIK MOHAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !, # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %% / M.P. NO.338/CHNY/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.1155/MDS/2017) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S TANFAC INDUSTRIES LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, OXFORD CENTRE, 64, C.P. RAMASAMY ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI - 600 018. PAN : AAACT 2591 A V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE III(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. ()*& /PETITIONER) ()+*,/ RESPONDENT) )*& . / /PETITIONER BY : SHRI ARUN KARTHIK MOHAN, ADV OCATE )+*, . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAHADEVAN, JCIT 0 . 1# / DATE OF HEARING : 23.03.2018 23' . 1# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.03.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION PRAYING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DA TED 06.09.2017. 2. SHRI ARUN KARTHIK MOHAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED NOTICE OF HEAR ING. HOWEVER, IT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS ONLY A DEFECT NOTICE. 2 M.P. NO.338/CHNY/17 THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CON TACTED THIS TRIBUNAL, IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE APPEAL WAS ALREA DY DISPOSED OF BY ORDER DATED 06.09.2017. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNS EL, THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS A BONAFIDE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THIS TRIBU NAL, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE CASE ON MERIT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI B. SAHADEVAN, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE WAS SERVE D ON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR, THE APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF ON MERIT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD WHICH NEE DS TO BE RECTIFIED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISPOSED OF EX PARTE FOR NON-APPEARANCE. NOW THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION UNDER RULE 24 OF APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM SUFFICIENT CAUSE FO R NOT APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 03.07.2017. 3 M.P. NO.338/CHNY/17 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. PROVISO TO RUL E 24 CLEARLY SAYS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR FOR REASONABL E CAUSE, THEN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL SHALL BE RECALLED. THEREFOR E, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF ON MERI T OR OTHERWISE, WHEN THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANC E BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 03.07.2017, THE ORDER NEEDS TO BE RECAL LED AND AN OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. MOREOV ER, GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT PREJUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE IN ANY WAY. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT GIVING SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WOULD DEFINITELY PR OMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 06.09.2017 IS HEREBY RECALLED. THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.1155/MDS/ 2017 STANDS RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE REGISTR Y IS DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL FOR FINAL DISPOSAL ON 09.05.2018 BEFORE THE REGULAR BENCH. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR TH E REGISTRY TO ISSUE A SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING. IN OTHER WORDS, A CO PY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE TREATED AS NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 09.05.201 8. 6. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 4 M.P. NO.338/CHNY/17 ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 23 RD MARCH, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. ! ) ( ... ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 23 RD MARCH, 2018. KRI. . )16% 7%'1 /COPY TO: 1. )*& / PETITIONER 2. )+*, /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 81 /CIT 5. %9 )1 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.