M/s Vision Commodities & Derivatives Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

MA 36/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5514 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K S BAINSADDL
• Assessee Lawyers: KULDEEP SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NOS.36/CHD/2017 IN ITA NO.786/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S VISION COMMODITIES & VS. THE ITO, DERIVATIVES PVT. LTD., WARD VI(3), 70,, NEW LAJPAT NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AACCV2023R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI KULDEEP SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.S. BAINS,ADDL.CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.11.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE APPLICANT FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L DATED 16.11.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHI CH WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 1.11.2016 SENT THROUGH SPEED POST (COPY ENCLOSED) THIRTEEN APPEALS INCLUDING THE ONE, WHICH HAS BEEN EX- PARTE, A REQUEST HAD BEEN MADE TO THE HON'BLE BENCH REGARDING CONSOLIDATION OF APPEALS FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BELOW: THAT THE ABOVE STATED APPEALS WTH SIMILAR ISSUE INVOLVED OF ABOVE STATED ASSESSEE SHRI SUDHIR 2 KUMAR SHARMA, HIS FAMILY AND RELATED BUSINESS CONCERNS RELATING TO ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE FIXED BEFORE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH, CHANDIGARH ON DIFFERENT DATES AS STATED IN REFERENCE (ENCLOSED NOTICES) THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT WAS FURTHER REQUESTED T O REFIX THE APPEALS AFTER CONSOLIDATION. IT WAS ON THIS RE ASON THAT THE HEARING ON 16.11.2016 WAS NOT ATTENDED. 3. THE LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVE NTED BY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING TO PROSECUTE THE A PPEAL. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT TO MEET THE EN DS OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. EXERCISING THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL PROVIDED IN THE PROVISO TO RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963, TO SET ASIDE AN EX-PARTE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL IN CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE DEMONS TRATES REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE, AND CONSIDERIN G THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR RECALLING THE ORDER FOR FRESH HEARING, WHICH WE HEREBY DO. THE REGISTRY IS DIRE CTED TO FIX THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL IN DUE COURSE AND ISS UE FORMAL NOTICE OF THE SAME TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE APPLICANT ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH