M.Tamilselvan, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 39/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4452 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO.39/MDS/2016 (IN I.T.A. NO.2266/MDS/2014) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI M. TAMILSELVAN, NO.8, SABAPATHY STREET, NARMADA NAGAR, ULLAGARAM, CHENNAI - 600 091. PAN : ABTPT 0617 L V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD I(5), CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 01.07.2016 3'( / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.07.2016 / 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 04.01.2016. 2 M.P. NO.39/MDS/16 2. SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS POSTE D ON 04.01.2016. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE NOT ICE OF HEARING AND THE SAME WAS HANDED OVER TO THE AUDITORS OFFIC E ALONG WITH POWER OF ATTORNEY TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE STAFF IN THE AUDITORS OFFICE TO WHOM THE PAPERS WERE HANDED OVE R, HAD NOT INFORMED THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT SHRI A. KRISHNAMO ORTHY AND LEFT ON LEAVE FOR HIS EXAMINATIONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS UN DER THE BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT SHRI A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, CH ARTERED ACCOUNTANT WILL APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE A SSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT NO ONE APPEARED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 0 4.01.2016, AFTER RECEIVING THE COPY OF THE ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT SHR I A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WILL APPEAR BE FORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THE NON-APPEARANC E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR WANTON. HOWEVER, IT WAS DUE TO THE FACT WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL PRAYED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT THE CASE ON MERIT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE NOTIC E OF HEARING WAS 3 M.P. NO.39/MDS/16 SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS ALSO HANDED OVER TO THE AUDITOR FOR APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREF ORE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENT TO APPEAR BY HIMSELF OR THROUGH REPRESENTATIVE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. SINCE NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING T O THE LD. D.R., THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THERE I S NO REASON FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 04.01 .2016. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 04 .01.2016 AND THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. EVE N AFTER RECEIVING THE NOTICE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. NOW THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING RECEIVED FROM THE TRIBUNAL WAS HANDED OVER TO THE OFFICE OF SHRI A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THE STAFF WHO RECEIVED THE NOTICE LEFT ON LEAVE FOR EXAMINATION. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE COULD NOT BE HANDED OVER TO SHRI A. KRISHNAM OORTHY. HENCE, NO ONE APPEARED WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HE ARING ON 04.01.2016. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HANDED OVER THE NOTICE OF HEARING AND THE POWER OF 4 M.P. NO.39/MDS/16 ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO AP PEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE UNDER THE BONAFIDE IM PRESSION THAT THE SAID CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WOULD HAVE APPEARED O N HIS BEHALF. HOWEVER, DUE TO COMMUNICATION GAP, NO ONE APPEARED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE T HIS TRIBUNAL ON 04.01.2016. ACCORDINGLY, IN EXERCISE OF POWER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL UNDER RULE 24 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, THE ORDE R OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 04.01.2016 IS HEREBY RECALLED. NOW THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.2266/MDS/2014 STANDS RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST TH E APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 30.08.2016. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING WAS PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, IT MAY NOT BE NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THE REGISTRY TO ISSUE SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING. IN OTHER WORDS, COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE TREATED AS NOTICE OF HEARING ON 30.08.2016. 5. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 5 M.P. NO.39/MDS/16 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST JULY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 1 ST JULY, 2016. KRI. / *267 87(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 92 /CIT 5. 7: *2 /DR 6. ' ; /GF.