SHRI MANSUKHLAL PITALIA, Ratlam V. THE ACIT, Ratlam

MA 35/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0431 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-12-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S C GOYAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.35/IND/2010 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO. 64/IND/2008) B.P. 1.4.96 TO 26.2.2002 MANSUKHLAL PITLIA RATLAM PAN ADHPP 5589 M APPLICANT VS. ACIT, RATLAM RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.C. GOYAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA, SR. DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT I S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALLING OF THE EXPARTE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 6.4.2010. 2. DURING HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, MR . S.C. GOYAL, LD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL BY SUBMITTING THAT THE NOTICE SENT BY THE REGISTRY OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS HOWEVER SERVED UP ON THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION SENT BY THE ASSESSEE REACHED L ATE IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL AND BY THE TIME, THE ORDER HAS ALREADY BEE N PASSED. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT A LENIENT VIEW MAY BE TAKEN AND ONE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE HIS CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI P.K. MITRA, LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL BY CONTENDING THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO REMAIN PRESENT ON T HE APPOINTED DATE AND IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS NON-AP PEARANCE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE APPOINTED DATE, THEREFORE, THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 6.4.2010 IS RECALLED. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE APPEL LANTS/RESPONDENTS AND NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD. THE APPEAL I S FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 26.4.2011. THE ASSESSEE IS D IRECTED NOT TO SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASON O N THE NEXT DATE I.E. 26.4.2011. SINCE THE NEXT DATE WAS PRONOUNCED IN TH E OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES, TH EREFORE, NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON 4.2.2011. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4.2.2011 {VYAS} COPY TO APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE