M/S. SEZ INDORE LIMITED, Indore V. THE CIT-1, Indore

MA 34/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4039 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: LUCKY JAIN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.34/IND/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.571/IND/2014 A.Y. : 2006-07 M/S.SEZ INDORE LIMITED, INDORE. CIT-I, INDORE. VS APPLICANT RESPONDENT APP LICANT BY : SHRI LUCKY JAIN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, DR O R D E R PER D.T.GARASIA, J.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE AC T IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIBU NAL VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.2015 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DATE OF HEARING : 04 .0 3 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 .0 3 .2016 M/S.SEZ INDORE LIMITED, INDORE. VS. CIT I, INDORE, M. A. NO. 34/IND/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 2 2 FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE APPOINTED DATE DUE TO CERTAIN UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTA NCES. 2. DURING HEARING, SHRI LUCKY JAIN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ADVOCATES WERE APPOINTE D TO REPRESENT THE APPLICANT AND MPAKVN LIMITED A DAY PR ECEDING THE DATE OF HEARING AND THE FILES WERE NOT HANDED O VER, THEREFORE, THEY COULD NOT CATEGORICALLY MENTION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THESE CASES. THE APPLICANT COULD NOT BE REPRESENTED ON 02.09.2015 DUE TO BONA FIDE REASONS AS STATED ABOVE. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE EX PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 02.09.2015 MAY BE RECALLED. AN AFFIDAVIT IS A LSO FILED TO THIS EFFECT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE URGED THA T LENIENT VIEW MAY BE TAKEN AND THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES TO BE VIGI LANT IN FUTURE. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT IT WAS T HE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO REMAIN PRESENT ON THE APPOINTED DAT E, THEREFORE, NO LENIENCY IS REQUIRED, MORE SPECIFICAL LY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. UNDER THE FACTS NARRATED HEREINABOVE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE M/S.SEZ INDORE LIMITED, INDORE. VS. CIT I, INDORE, M. A. NO. 34/IND/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 3 3 PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL ON T ECHNICALITIES ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THE REASONS OF NON- APPEARANCE AS NARRATED ABOVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, CONSEQUENTLY, THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DA TED 02.09.2015 IS RECALLED WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IT W ILL BE TREATED AS LAST OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS THIS APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON SO MANY DATES AT THE REQUESTS OF THE A SSESSEE. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO REFIX THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH MARCH, 2016. SD/- (B.C.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 4 TH MARCH, 2016. CPU*