M/S MARS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, KASHMIR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANTNAG CIRCLE, KASHMIR

MA 41/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3110 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. Nos. 41 & 42/Asr/2019 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 271 & 308/Asr/2017) Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08 Mars Educational Trust, Bijbehara Anantnag, Kashmir (J & K) [PAN: AADTM 7094D] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Anantnag Circle, Kashmir (J & K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None (Written Submission) Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 25.08.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: These miscellaneous applications are arising out of the orders of the ITAT dated 07.11.2017 in ITA Nos. 271 & 308/Asr/2017 wherein the assessee requested to recall the orders passed by the Tribunal ex-parte qua the assessee and restoration of the appeals to be heard on merits. 2. From the written submission filed by the appellant, it is noted that the assessee has filed adjournment application with a request to the bench MA Nos. 41&42/Asr/2019 Mars Educational Trust v. ITO 2 through email to adjourn the cases in the future date available on the board; that in spite of its best effort and recourse to the available network at a place of Srinagar wherein the internet services are not regular, the request of the appellant for adjournment of hearing of the appeal sent through email may probably not reached before the bench in time, and that it was culminated in to the ex-parte decision in the instant appeal. 3. It is further stated that there has been no deliberate attempt to subvert any process of law but the non-appearance on the stipulated date has been caused by circumstances beyond its control which necessitated e-mailing the request letter for adjournment and that the appeal has been filed in time and the assessee has a justifiable case on its merits, and therefore, by summarily dismissing the case, without deciding the issue on its merits had caused a great injustice to the assessee for no deliberate fault which has further compounded the miscarriage of justice, the appellant has faced at the hands of the ld. Assessing Officer. 4. In support, the ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd., 38-ITD-320 followed by the Amritsar Bench in the various cases wherein the remedy has been provided for restoration of appeal by preferring the miscellaneous petition explaining the reasons for failure to pursue the appeal. He also relied on the judgment of Rainbow MA Nos. 41&42/Asr/2019 Mars Educational Trust v. ITO 3 Agri Industry Ltd. v. CIT 266 39 (Bom.), wherein it has been held that the application made for restoration of appeals which are dismissed ex-parte on account of non-appearance, desire to be liberally construed. Accordingly, he prayed that the ex-parte order passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal may be recalled to allow the adequate opportunity to the assessee to appear and present its case in order to meet ends of justice in view of the most fundamental and cherished principles of natural justice ‘audi alteram partem’. 5. The ld. DR has no objection to the prayer of the assessee in recalling the order in view of the principles of natural justice. 6. Heard the rival contentions and perused the material on the record. Admittedly, the Tribunal has passed the orders ex-parte qua the assessee by following case of ‘CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.’ 38 ITD 320 (Del.) treating this appeal as unadmitted. 7. The appellants contend that they applied for adjournment through e- mail and hence, they were under the bonafide belief that their cases would be adjourned to next available date of hearing. It was due to this reason, that the counsel did not appear before the tribunal on the appointed date. There is nothing on record to refute, the above contentions on behalf of the MA Nos. 41&42/Asr/2019 Mars Educational Trust v. ITO 4 assessee. Even otherwise, the assessee would not stand benefited by not putting in appearance before the tribunal. 8. In our view, the assessee was visited by sufficient cause for nonappearance before the tribunal. Accordingly, the grievance of the assessee is accepted. Therefore, our order dated 07.11.2017 is recalled. Both the appeals are restored to their original numbers in situ. The registry is directed to fix hearing on the next available date and accordingly, issue notices under the intimation to both the parties. 9. In the result, both the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.08.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order