RRAHUL TANEJAA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

MA 41/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5618 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Non compliance

Judgement Text

VK VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 41/JP/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 123/JP/2016) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 RAHUL TANEJAA, FLAT NO. E-104, MAHIMA IRIS-III, SWAGE FARM, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ITO, WARD- 5(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ACDPT 8773 E VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26/05/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/05/2017 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIO N ON 17/03/2017 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR DATED 27/09/2016 PASSED IN ITA NO. 123/JP/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2011-12. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL VIDE ITA NO. 123/JP/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AGAINST THE ORDER O F LEARNED CIT(A)-1, M.A. NO. 41/JP/2017 RAHUL TANEJAA VS ITO 2 JAIPUR 27/11/2015. THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT, JAIPUR HA S DECIDED THE APPEAL IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING DECIS ION OF DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. ( 1991) 38 ITD 320 AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS MISC. APPLICATION AND EXP LAINED THE REASONS AS TO WHY THE HEARING OF APPEAL ON 27/09/2016 COULD NOT BE ATTENDED, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THIS HON BLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DT. 27.09.2016 EX-PARTE STATING THAT, DESPITE THE NOTI CE OF HEARING SENT BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE ASSESSEE NO ONE REPRESENTED '. FROM THIS, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS CASE. UNDE R THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED UNDER RULE 19 (2). 2. THAT THE REASON OF NON COMPLIANCE WAS THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS LIVING ON THE RENT HE HAS SHIFTED ITS RESIDENCE AFTER FILLING THE APPE AL FROM THE OLD ADDRESS FLAT NO. E- 104, MAHIMA IRIS -II, SWEJ FARM NEW SANGANER ROAD J AIPUR TO FLAT NO. B-402, FELICITY SOLITAIRE APARTMENTS, PLOT NO.2 SWEJ FARM NEW SANGANER ROAD JAIPUR 302019. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INFORMED TO HIS COUNSE L FOR THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT HAVING IN HIS MIND OR REMEMBERED THAT THE COUNSEL HAS GIVEN COMMUNICATION ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FIL ED BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. HE WAS UNDER IMPRESSION THAT THE ADDRESS IN APPEAL WAS OF COUNSEL OR COUNSEL WAS HAVING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SAME. HENCE DUE TO ABOVE REASON THE APPELLANT COULD NOT MAKE ANY COMPLIANCE/APPEAR BEFORE THE HON BLE BENCH IN THE ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FIXATION. 3. THAT THERE WAS NO INTENDED, WILLFUL OR DELIBERATE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND ID. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIRCU MSTANCES WERE TOTALLY BEYOND CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ID. COUNSEL. M.A. NO. 41/JP/2017 RAHUL TANEJAA VS ITO 3 4. THAT THE HUMBLE APPLICANT WAS VERY MUCH DESIROUS, SERIOUS AND KEEN IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED AND THAT IS WHY AN APPEAL WAS FILED. IT HAS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THE HUMBLE APPLICANT HAD TO INCUR SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURE ALSO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE FILING FEES, PAYMENT OF PROFESSIO NAL FEES TO THE ID. COUNSEL FOR DRAFTING, FILING AND FOR THE ARGUMENT OF THE PRESEN T APPEAL. UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SUBMITTED HEREINABOVE, IT IS NOT PROPER TO INFER THAT THE HUMBLE APPLICANT WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUT ING THE APPEAL. 5. THAT THE IGNORANCE, IF ANY, WAS DUE TO COMMUNICATI ON GAP ON THE PART OF THE ID. COUNSEL AND THE APPLICANT FOR THAT IGNORANCE APPLIC ANT SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO SUFFER FOR THIS. THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL EX-PRA TE HAS SERIOUSLY PREJUDICED THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF A CITIZEN. HENCE, A SYMPATHETI C VIEW MAY KINDLY BE TAKEN. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AND PRAYED TO RECALL THE HONBLE ITAT ORDER DATED 27/09/2016. THE D.R. HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION IF THE HONBLE BENCH RECALL THE EX PARTE ORDER DATED 2 7/09/2016. 4. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DU E TO SHIFTING OF HOUSE FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T INFORMED ABOUT THE CHANGE OF HIS ADDRESS TO HIS COUNSEL AND HE WAS IN IMPRESSION THAT THE ADDRESS GIVEN ON THE APPEAL FILED WAS OF LD. CO UNSEL, THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE BENCH. AFTER CONSIDERIN G ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I REC ALL ORDER DATED 27/09/2016 PASSED BY THIS BENCH IN ITA NO. 123/JP/2 016. ACCORDINGLY THE PRESENT M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AN D DATE OF HEARING OF M.A. NO. 41/JP/2017 RAHUL TANEJAA VS ITO 4 THE APPEAL IS GIVEN IN OPEN COURT FOR 04/07/2017. TH E REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASE AS PER THE ABOVE DATE IN REGULAR HE ARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/05/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 29 TH MAY, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAHUL TANEJAA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 5(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (M.A. 41/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR