Sh. Rajesh Kumar Chawla, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 388/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5233 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: N S BHATNAGAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH : FRIDAY NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.388/DEL./2010 (IN I.T.A. NO.601/DEL./2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SHRI RAJESH KUMAR CHAWLA, VS. ITO, WARD 41(2), H.NO.87, BLOCK-B, POCKET-9, NEW DELHI. SECTOR 4, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085. (PAN/GIR NO.ADEPC6636R) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N.S. BHATNAGAR, CA REVENUE BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTY, SR.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN : JM VIDE OUR ORDER DATED 6.4.2010, THE DEPARTMENTS APPE AL WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPE AL, NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF N OTICE. IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT IN F ACT, NO NOTICE REGARDING HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS EVER SERVED ON TH E ASSESSEE; THAT IN FACT, THE COPY OF OUR ORDER SUPRA WAS ADDRESSED TO T HE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS H.NO.87, BLOCK 13, POCKET 9, SECTOR 4, RO HINI, NEW DELHI, WHEREAS THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS H.NO.87, BL OCK B, POCKET 9, SECTOR 4, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085; THAT EVEN NO NOTICE ABOUT THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT WA S EVER COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS IN THESE CIRC UMSTANCES THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL; THAT IN THESE FACTS, OUR ORDER SUPRA NEEDS TO BE RECALLED AND THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REHEARD AFRESH. AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE ACCOMPANIES THE APPLICATION. 2. WE FIND THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE JUSTIFIED . IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT WHEREAS IN THE ARRAY OF PARTIES, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS H.NO .87, BLOCK B, POCKET 9, SECTOR 4, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085; T HAT IN THE ARRAY OF PARTIES IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEES ADDRESS HAS BEEN SHOWN AS H.NO.87, BLOCK 13, POCKET 9, SECTOR 4, ROHI NI, DELHI; AND THAT IN THE FORM NO.36, I.E. THE FORM OF APPEAL BE FORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALSO, THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS HOUSE NO. 87, BLOCK 13, POCKET 9, SECTOR 4, ROHINI, NEW D ELHI-110085. THIS IS HOW THE ERROR HAS OCCURRED AND THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SENT AT BLOCK 13, INSTEAD OF BLOCK B . 3. IT WAS DUE TO THE ABOVE, THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, DUE TO WHI CH, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PUTTING IN APPEARANCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG OF THE APPEAL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BY W AY OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIED AND IS AC CEPTED AS SUCH. OUR ORDER DATED 6.4.2010 (SUPRA) IS THUS RECALLED. TH E APPEAL IS RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER IN SITU. IT SHALL NOW COME UP FOR HEARING AFRESH ON MERITS ON 8.12.2010, WHICH DATE WAS PRONOUNC ED IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, IN THE OPEN COURT. ACC ORDINGLY, NO FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL ISSUE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01.10.2010. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 01/10/2010. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES